chart of wealth here, you'll see something very same. the rich get richer and the poor stay where they are. that old song. and here we are. this is the result of multiple effects but one of the principle ones is tax policy. and if mr. ryan's budget passes as you have suggested, then the top tax rate goes from 39% to 25%. which means that those who already have a lot will get a whole lot more. . i'm reminded of a quote by president roosevelt, and he id, it's -- this is to paraphrase. he said we're not measured by how much those who have get what we do who have little.

this is where the great buying power of america should be in the bottom 99%, really the bottom 50% or 60%. i thank you for raising the tax policy in the ryan budget. the rest, because of the elimination of the debt actions, are going to see a stalling of their income. ms. norton: he does get balance within 10 years and look how he gets it. you still do not have like anything like a contribution, a real contribution, from those who have benefited the most from the tax cuts built on that chart. you are talking about it continues to come from the lowest part of the income stream -- income groups in the united states. i don't know when people will -- let the congress know they aren't going to take it anymore. the time has come. i was encouraged and i hope this

pans out that the president has reached out to some senators to see there is somebody somewhere, at perhaps we could get to a greater balance by bringing more people into the equation. the republicans are fond of saying, you can't spend yourself into prosperity. well, you can't cut yourself into prosperity either. that's why the notion of balance makes the most sense. that's why the president was elected, because that made the most sense to the american people. mr. garamendi: exactly. the president has proposed a balanced approach to sequestration as well as to the long-term deficit plan. a combination of additional revenues, from closing loopholes and also some very wise cuts. i talked earlier about the

prescription drug benefit. there is the way in which medicare is organized. the fee-for-service system encourages additional and often unnecessary procedures and there is praud in the system. the affordable care act went right after every one of those and they want to repeal the affordable care act. what are they thinking? since the affordable care act went into effect has dropped, still growing, but growing slower than the inflation rate in the nation. ms. norton: that is the first time we have seen that in decades. mr. garamendi: we are seeing the changes. the affordable care act, an annual well-person visit to the doctor. so critically important. why? what's your blood pressure? how's your sugar? what is happening in your life?

can we prevent you from getting diabetes? can we get you cheap pills to have your blood pressure go down r you get a stroke and pay big time. the affordable care act has the incentives to bend the cost curve and it is working. ms. norton: it's working and because it's working, we know that the last thing the american people would approve snatching it back since by 2014, it's going to reach everybody. i agree with you, there are ways to cut. and unlike my friends on the other side, this side has never said no cuts, just like -- their view is only spending -- we have never had that view. only this or that. we only are open to the kind of negotiation, tough negotiation it's going to take to come out

with something. i will say to the ryan budget, if he says he was questioned about, do you think any of this is going to happen? and he said words to the effect, you have to put down words what they really want. i don't have any problem with that. if they come to the negotiation table, maybe we can get to the kind of budget that really is doable. mr. garamendi: our time is nearly over. if you would like to make a closing comment. ms. norton: i thank my friend for keeping the jobs to before us and the bottom line, even as we talk about the ryan budget, i wanted to come forward because when i heard you on the floor, it seemed to me everything you budget, i , the ryan ask people to follow the explanation of what that budget does. when you hear he can close the budget in 10 years, rather than

25 years understand that that is impossible if you want to grow this economy. and i thank you once again, my good friend from california, for making all the important points this evening. mr. garamendi: washington, d.c., your leadership in this community has been known for some time and i thank you very much for joining us tonight. i want to do two things before i end. first of all, medicare is back on the table. the ryan budget takes up medicare once again and provides a voucher that will destroy it. i'm going to change this. medicare, 1965, president 2013, created by l.b.j., destroyed by the g.o.p. i don't think so. seniors don't want it. americans don't want it. the last campaign for presidency, this was one of the

major issues and ryan is coming back with it. bad idea, bad timing. and i want to end with this, this is a great country. there is no other place in the world like the united states. it is one terrific country. there is enormous energy in this country, where people want to get a job and go to work and businesses want to grow and hire people. all of that is waiting for congress to get its act together, to get this sequestration out of the way, austerity budget, 750,000 jobs to be lost. get that out of the way. look at a balanced proposal and end tax loopholes, make some cuts, make wise, thoughtful cuts. it can be done and should be done. along the way, we can grow the economy. we can once again make it in america. because when we make things in america, when we use our tax money to buy american-made equipment and supplies, we are

creating jobs and putting people back to work. george washington said it. alexander hamilton said we ought to do it. and we the democrats said we ought to do this and ought to buy american. mr. rahall, the ranking member of the transportation and infrastructure committee made it clear as a part of the new transportation bill, there's going to be a major make it in america component so we are buying american-made goods once again and supported by every one of the ranking members of every subcommittee and i add myself to that list. for the last three years, i carried specific bills, that money would be used to buy american-made trucks, bridges, steel in america. if you are going to put up a solar panel or wind turbine and expect a subsidy, then it should be an american-made solar panel

or wind turbine. we can make it in america. that's our message. our message is to be wise about the cuts. yes, we are going to make cuts. balance it with appropriate revenue increases, which should be basically the elimination of many of the unnecessary subsidies that go out, even to american corporations still receiving subsidies for offshoring jobs. no more. the president was right. give breaks to american companies that bring jobs back to the united states. all of this is possible. this is what we are here. 435 in the house of representatives to set policy. mr. delaney talked about education, technology, energy policy and we were joined by our other friends, mr. higgins from new york, mr. ryan from ohio and ms. norton from washington, d.c.,. mr. speaker, i yield back my time, and thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, i have a motion. i make a motion to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. >> in a few moments, budget

chair are presented of paul ryan. in 30 minutes, senator harry reid. the senate intelligence committee and the heads of the cia and fbi about global threats to the u.s. the house republicans 2014 budget plan would balance the federal budget in 10 years. among other things, reforming the tax code and medicare and repealing the president's healthcare law. paul ryan spoke with reporters in the capital for half an hour. >> good morning, everyone. what we have here is the house budget committee republican majority. putting out yet again a budget that it just is america's needs, a budget that balances.

it is a responsible, balanced budget. we owe the american people a balanced budget. or the third straight year, we have a limited. we have balance a budget in just 10 years. this is a plan to balance the budget in 10 years. the house budget committee has spent the last several weeks working together with each other just like families and businesses do around the country. we have been assembling a budget so that we can make sure our country can live within its means. it is a reasonable goal, balancing the budget. we cannot keep spending money we do not have. that is the basic acknowledgment and you are budgeting. just like emmys and businesses, you cannot keep the can down the road. just like families and businesses, you cannot keep kicking the can down the road. medicare is jeopardizing the health for millions of american

seniors. we foster healthier economy that can create jobs and grow more wages. balancing the budget is not simply an act of arithmetic. it is not just getting expenditures and revenues to add. it is a means to healthier economy. a progrowth economy that delivers opportunity. that is why we are doing this. let me walk through a few. there we go. here is what we begin with. this budget cut spending by 4.6 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. we have paid a little less than 1/5 of her income to the federal government, but the government has spent a lot more. we match revenues with expenditures. our budget matches the spending with our income just like every family and business must do throughout america. in fact, we bring our deficits down right away.

this shows you how our differences after goes down to the point where we end up with a surplus in 2023. in the 1990s, the democratic president work with a republican congress to balance the budget. this is the goal that both parties have been able to achieve in the past. it is something we ought to do again. number three, this is a picture that should scare everyone. this is a picture that shows you the path we are on today. we know without a shred of doubt that we are consigning the next generation to and inferior -- an inferior standard of living. that crisis hurts everyone. the people are hurts the most of the poor, culturally. -- the elderly. what are we doing? we are dressing the most predictable economic crisis in our history.

the red line shows you the path that this country is on right now. the green line shows you the path we chew by putting this budget into law. we will be able to pay off our debt. doing that helps grow the economy as well. i would like to turn over to one of the distinguished members of the finance committee. please know that by balancing the budget, we grow the economy. i including progrowth reforms like tax reform, we are making it easier for businesses to plan, invest, and be competitive. we want more jobs, higher wages , m is getting into the middle class. that is one of the cornerstone policies we have. let me turn over to diane to explain what we are doing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. our budget has opportunity to change the course of our nation. we have a responsibility to

avoid the debt crisis that the chairman has said and to move forward with a prosperous future. common sense and matt tell us that balancing a budget requires two things -- cutting spending and economic growth. -- and math tells us that balancing a budget requires two things -- cutting spending and economic growth. the tax code today is nearly 4 million words long and about 60 % of our taxpayers need to hire professionals to help them revere their returns. every year americans send -- spent 6 million hours and a lot of money filling out their returns. clearly something is wrong. reaffirms that the ways and means committee will pass comprehensive, progrowth legislation this year. this budget builds on bipartisan

consensus in favor of lowering the rates to create jobs and broadening the base to ensure fairness and simplicity for our families. the purpose of tax reform is not to take more money from our families to spend more money in washington. it is to create jobs and to increase the wages for working families. i look forward to working with budget members and also the ways and means committee to examine comprehensive tax reform this year to help strengthen the economy, reduce the deficit, and get americans back to work. thank you. >> at this time, i would like to turn the podium over to the dicvice chairman of the budget committee. >> thank you. budgets are about priorities. the priorities of the american people support getting federal spending under control, getting

the economy moving again so folks can get back to work, and getting the debt crisis under control so we can per serve the american june for future generations. -- american dream for future iterations. -- generations. this budget is the way to responsible, balanced budget. the federal government should not spend more than it takes in. we agree. budgets proposed by president obama have never, ever gotten into balance. the legal deadline for him to present his budget to commerce this year was february 4. it is now march 12. asked express tell us that when he does bring in his budget on the that one will not balance. americans family cannot live this way, and neither should the federal government. republicans believe that people were too hard to have the federal government take more of

their money to spend more in washington. we want the american people to keep more of their hard-earned money to save and spend as they see fit. senate democrats have not adopted a budget in nearly four years. they'll do one this year because of the no budget, no pay act that was passed earlier this year. they continue to say we need --e taxes t, but they cannot but the truth is they cannot tax american people enough to pay for the spending that they want. the next test will be whether they can pass a budget that they introduced. below in a senate democrats be willing to endorse a plan that taxes more so that washington can spend more? that is not working. american people are sick in tired of the games. our plan, the house republican budget, puts a stop to that.

that way they use tax care dollars in an accountable way. will the white house and senate democrats be able to say the same thing about their budgets? will we see more gimmicks and wasteful spending? this path to prosperity, this budget, will create a healthier economy or job creators are hiring, job seekers are finding more jobs, and more american families and entrepreneurs are realizing their dreams. this path to prosperity ensures we are honoring the commitments that americans see as a priority. this budget cares for the poor and fixes the american safety net programs and expense economic art unity -- economic opportunity. his budget will protect those programs while we control spending and solve the issue's debt crisis. our hope is that democrats see

these as vital programs and something they want to save and strengthen not demagogue. we believe in the industrious miss and ingenuity of the american dreams -- industrious newss and ingenuity of american dreams. thank you. >> thank you. this is not only a responsible balanced plan, but also an invitation. it is an invitation to the president of united states and the senate democrats to come together to fix these problems. we do not think it is fair to let medicare go bankrupt. it is not fair to take more from hard-working families to spend more in washington. the most in question in -- important question is not how to budget, but why. it is for the well-being of the american people. balanced budget will help

provide economic security we need and help secure retirement for seniors and will help expand opportunities for young people looking for careers and jobs in the stagnant economy. final point -- we want to revive the budget process so we can have regular order. what does that mean? that means let's do our jobs. that means we want to pass a budget in the house. we are pleased the senate is going to pass a budget or lease attempt to pass a budget. that means we are reviving a process that is not in the back room, but shows how we will accomplish these goals. we want to revive this budget process so i the end of the day, we can have a vehicle to get something done. i do not think the president disagrees with that. this is an invitation to show us how to bounce a budget. if you do not like it, how do you propose to balance a budget? are we going to be complicit

with never balancing the budget? rb going to guarantee an inferior standard of living for the next generation -- are we going to guarantee an inferior standard of living for the next generation? this is a plan to show us how to get things under control. it is our vision for a progrowth society. the final point is this -- for far too long we have measured success of our efforts by inputs of how much we are spending on programs rather than measuring success by outputs of how it is working. we have put so much money into our willful row grams -- welfare programs, but we have millions of people living in poverty. some of the highest rates in a generation. rather than measuring how much money we are spending in these row grams, let's measure whether we are helping people and getting them out of poverty and back on their feet.

these are the kinds of questions we are tackling in this budget. as we do this, we are showing the country a plan to balance the budget and grow the economy to get people out of poverty and get the american dream reignited. questions. >> you spent time on the campaign trail arguing against taxes. in this budget, you say that you balance in 10 years by using $600 billion in new taxes that you opposed. isn't that disingenuous? >> not a talt all. what we are showing with everything that has occurred in the past, what we're saying is to replace this anti-growth tax code, this crony capitalism tax

code with a progrowth tax system that helps families and businesses. get rid of the taxes to we have and replace it. lower tax rates and fewer loopholes. we can still balance a budget. we will not talk about the past. law is law. we know that will not change. we can balance the budget. we can do it faster. we want to do it the better tax code. >> but a key part of your budget is -- why go through this again? second, did you feel you have to include repeal of the affordable care act? >> let me go back. the fiscal cliff occurred, but

we do not like the tax code it has produced. we are proposing a new tax code that is more progrowth. less take obamacare or example, the affordable health care act. we do not like this law. we want to repeal this in our budget. we believe that this law will collapse under its own weight. when americans see what this law entails, those of us who know what will happen, they will not like this law. we do not think we can afford to borrow trillions of dollars that this law until's. we can replace with a better healthcare system. that is something that we will be opposing. here is a better patient centered system to replace obamacare. it is consistent with everything

we believe in. we think obamacare destroys the health care system. it will provide an inferior health care system. this to us is something we will not give up on because will not give up on destroying this. we want to prevent this law. it will do great damage to families. jonathan. >> there are probably be something offered to bounce the debt and gdp ratio. why is it important to reach balance are near balance versus getting the debt to stabilize? >> getting the debt to stabilize this not fix our problem. it is a ready too large. -- already too large.

we need to bounce a budget and get the debt down. you cannot pay down the debt in a serious way to you balance a budget. we can show you this chart will be get the debt under control. the problem is that the current high levels of debt we have today are threat to our economy. it guarantees it will destroy the next future for the generation. making it look a little less bad is not a budget. the senate democrats and to be going down that half. .-- path >> how will you balance things under your plan? >> there are broken promises that were approved. americans will find a rude awakening. remember when obama said that

there be lower healthcare costs? ? it has been going up since obamacare past. member when he said it would be done in the open? it was a closed room deal. you'll see substandard health care. you will see young people not wanting to go into the field of because of obamacare. we believe that in the interest of healthcare for families and making medicare work better for low income people, we need to repeal and replace obamacare with that are system. we will never allen's a budget if you keep obamacare going. it is a fiscal train that -- we will never balance the budget if you keep obamacare going. it is a fiscal train wreck. >> you said that there was millions funneled out of healthcare by president obama

all to pay for an entitlement we did not ask for. you count that in your budget. you count savings from the fiscal deal as part of deficit reduction. sosa $600 billion from the going plan -- isn't that against everything your conference stands for? isn't out of the white house? >> we believe we can still have a progrowth tax code. that is why we are saying to the president and the democrats who want to continue raising taxes to spend money in washington, you will destroy tax reform if you do that. we can still have a very good, family growing, pro-tax reform. let me make it clear -- this

budget has stopped the rate of medicare. president obama took money from medicare to spend on creating obamacare. we end that and make sure all of that was back to healthcare. we are concerned about some of the provider networks. we are concerned about some issues that might arise. we have a special fund, a procedure to address any inadequacies in might have in the medicare provider system if the situations arise. every penny of medicare should go to medicare. if we find that there's a problem that needs addressing, we we have a special procedure to do that. >> people outside this process might look at this press conference today that is similar to last year where you stood there and we stood here. [laughter]

people outside this process might be watching today and saying, well, ryan did this last year. >> and the year before that. >> indeed. he was on this ticket. president obama ran on what he calls the balanced approach. raising taxes on wealthy and his medicare position. he won that election. house republicans lost some seats in the house. senate republicans lost seats in the senate. people outside this process might wonder if elections have consequences on the budget process. do they? >> the election did not go our way. believe me, i know what that feels like. that means -- look, whether the country intended it or not, we have a divided government. we have the second largest

majority in house since world war ii. we need to put out our vision. we owe the country abounds budget. we of the country solutions to the biggest problems that are plaguing our nation. i debt crisis is on the horizon. a slow going economy. people trapped in poverty. we are showing our answers. we are in the majority. the president won reelection. this is our offer. this is our vision. what you do is show the country what you believe in. the senate has not passed a budget in four years. despite the fact the law requires them to do so every year. because of the note budget, no pay act, they are finally doing a budget. -- no budget, no pay act, they're finally doing a budget. that is good. i am encourage about that. if they can pass a budget, then

we have a process out in the public or the nation to see that gets us going down the path of solving albums. get a down payment on the problem. will the president take every one of the solutions? probably not. did we win these arguments in that campaign trail? what we are saying is here is our offer. here is how we propose a plan that is a balance budget to grow the economy and repair the safety net and save medicare. we hope the senate will follow suit and show their vision. they need to put their plan on the table, and that we can start looking for common ground. that is a constructive way forward. >> you want to get down to two tax brackets -- 10% and 25%. what do say to the argument that in order to do that, you have to go after mortgage rate interest and charitable donations and the healthcare

exclusion. >> yes, sir. this is what the ways and means committee will do. the ways and means committee has working groups and is doing hearing after hearing going through the tax code and trying to figure out a better tax system. our goal is to have a to bracket system -- two bracket system that is progrowth. that means maintaining important loopholes for middle income taxpayers. i would also argue that those who think we need to keep raising taxes on higher income people, there are different ways of doing this. you can flood loopholes and subject higher income earners to a higher tax rate. a out of 10 businesses in america are not corporations. -- 8 out of 10 businesses in america are not corporations.

they are businesses owned by regular people. last year, canada lower their tax rate on all businesses to 15%. 44. top tax rate on hourours is 8%. how can you compete and your competitors are taxing their businesses at much lower tax rates than we are taxing hours? you think the current tax roacoe destroying jobs. it makes american business is much less competitive. and meansy the meanhe mways committee wants to get more people working again. >> is that a shift in approach? >> our approach reflects exactly what the president's joint chiefs season minimum levels necessary to fund the mission for the pentagon. this is our first priority --

national defense. we're funding at the levels the joint chiefs say is necessary to maintain national security. about how theing fiscal cliff deal and other improvements major job easier, but you still have to take steps to get a balance. what are those steps? >> one is a budget control act. we extend the budget control act. we also want to extend reforms on the public workforce on federal employees to include all federal employees so that their pension contribution matches those that are in the private sector. we do not think federal employees should be able to have pension systems that are far in access to what the private sector counterparts get. doing those things makes it

easier to approach a bounce budget. we have always produced a budget in the past. it has taken a little bit of a longer time. we have got to close. that gets us closer to balancing the budget by the end of the budget window. now that we know it is easier to balance a budget, we should not drop the ball on balancing the budget. the president and the democrats should join us. it is an invitation to balance the budget. balancing the budget helps our economy. eggers is a healthy economy and a progrowth economy. -- it gives us a healthy economy and a progrowth economy. this is a goal we should all have. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> you are in the day, president obama met with to discuss a variety of issues, including the budget.

>> mr. president, what do you hope to accomplish? >> this week we are seeing revealing contrasts. the president is reaching out to republicans in the senate. in the senate, we are working out a bill in a bipartisan fashion to get a compromise to protect middle-class families. tomorrow senator murray will introduce her bill. a budget resolution, i should say. it has a balanced approach to what we have to do with the economy. we hope it will be brought to the house floor next week. republicans are moving away from compromise.

house republicans are dancing that ryan republican budget that is even more extreme than the propaganda we have seen in the past. -- are advancing the ryan republican budget that is even more extreme than the propaganda we have seen in the past. he is going after education, healthcare, brent of health -- preventive health, cancer screenings, and much more. instead of ending wasteful corporate tax loopholes, their budget ends the care as we know it. our economy is poised to grow. we have the strongest month of job growth we have seen in many years. the republican's approach of austerity could reverse that. we need to reduce our deficit, it in a smart way. we need to combine spending cuts and closing wasteful tax loopholes.

the american people do not want to retreat into respective corners. they want us to find common ground to work together to find solutions to the challenges we face. it is too bad the republicans are moving further away that we thought they could. >> is there a sacrifice the democrats will have to make? does orion budget make it harder for you to move into their direction? doe-- does the orion budget makt harder for you to move into their direction? -- the ryan budget make it harder for you to move into their direction? >> i'm sorry. i do not understand your question. >> does it make it harder for you guys to negotiate? >> it is a one-sided negotiation. that is a problem we have had for years with republicans. they are unwilling to do anything.

because of that, there's not even a conversation going on with the president. he has been trying to show how nice he is. >> the grand bargain -- are you open now to changes to social security? >> here's the issue -- the president in the past has had negotiations with boehner. and cantor. he has indicated he's willing to do certain things. the republicans do not get further than that. they talk in the abstract. >> [indiscernible] >> i'm not going to get into that. you have to ask her. hers is a balance plan with equal cuts and equal revenue.

50/50. >> [indiscernible] >> [indiscernible] >> we are confident that dodd frank will be implemented more quickly than we think. it is going forward. there is no question that on obamacare, the parties being held at exchanges being created. >> [inaudible] >> that is interesting. i do not know the details. this is a new era of let's get along. all of this yelling about -- i just learned when i was in here with the president that who else -- coburn -- will not let

us move ahead with the bill. we might have to use the new rules we have where we can move forward. >> will he sign off on that expedited process? >> last i heard about that was a few minutes ago. >> paul ryan and senators -- are you concerned that is in jeopardy at all? >> no. they put millions of dollars to put this forward and responded to them. as he said in his letter of response, it is tea party driven nonsense.

any imagine anyone opposing a high-speed rail? we had a difficult time getting people back and forth from southern california to southern nevada. it does not to watch shows. it is trucks carrying products that need to be carried across the country. this high-speed rail, the president likes it. it is something we should do. that is nonsense to hear from the two budget years to want to go back to the dark ages. thank you. >> good afternoon, everyone.

we're looking forward to having the president up on thursday to meet with our group. i think given the fact that we are going into budget week with both the democrats and republicans laying out the budgets that will be on the floors of the house and senate nisnext week, it is notable to point out the president's budget will come up after both the house and the senate have voted. i hope that is not a reflection of a lack of seriousness, but it is beyond tardy. with regard to what we are doing this week, the first amendment on the republican side will be an amendment by senator cruisz. the economy needs to get back on track. with regard to what a lot of you have described as a president's charm offensive, we welcome it.

members went to dinner with him last week. it was excellent. i told the president on friday i hope you will invite all of our members down for the smaller dinners. it would be a good opportunity to have a candid conversation. they know with his request to raise the debt ceiling again later this summer, we will be discussing again the possibility of finally solving our huge deficit and debt problem by making the kind of changes to the entitlement side that we now we have to make if we are going to save these rogue rims and save our country. -- to these programs and save our country. >> [inaudible] >> not since for a long time has the president failed to submit a proposed budget to the united states congress except for the current occupant in the white house who has missed that

deadline four times out of five. if there is a better way to bring yourself irrelevant to the debate on the most important issue facing our country today, that might well be have taken the cake. the president's budget will not get here until after the house and the senate have passed their own budgets. if the president wants to be constructive and have six suggestions on how to put the budget -- and have to suggestions on how to put the budget in balance, he would send our budget that his budget in before the house and the senate passes their own budgets. that might be the reason we find ourselves $16.5 trillion in debt and on the cusp of a potential fiscal crisis. the president has shown no leadership on this. he seems insistent on leading from behind. >> [inaudible] >> as my colleague said, this is

budget week in the senate. the question we ought to ask in budget week is what will this budget do to result in economic growth? how will he grow the economy? that is a question that ought to be asked of every budget proposal that is out there. the house of representatives is in the process of airing their budget. senate democrats are doing theirs over here. look at the last four years. the obama administration has put in place higher taxes and massive amounts of debt and burdensome regulations that make it more expensive for drug creators to create jobs and have resulted in sluggish economic growth. for the past four years, 0.8% growth is what we have seen under this administration. you would hope that the democrats would be preparing the budget and looking at policies that will grow the economy. what we're hearing is that it

will be more of the same. we are talking about trillion dollar tax increase and more spending and nothing to save social security and medicare by reforming those programs in a way that will align them with the future demographics of this country. it is more of the same policies with regards to their budget. we think there is a better way. we will look for opportunities to offer amendments that will point that out. bottom line, the democrat budget as we know it today is going to hurt jobs, the economy, and make it difficult for job creators to get americans back to work. that should be the fundamental question we ask about the budget process as we enter next week. >> there's a front-page story today in one of the papers on the hill that talked about a number of democrats who are now griping about the president's health care law. these washington democrats go to their homes and talk to folks

and are realizing that the health care law is bad for patients and their providers and nurses who take care of those patients. it is terrible for taxpayers. there are now one trillion new taxes on hard-working americans as a result of the health care law. it is hurting our country. the fed reserve and their age group 's came out with a report last week saying that there are -- beige books came out with a report last week. people are being laid off and decisions are being held off to higherfee. if the business grows to over 50 employees, they have to start paying large fines. they hire employees for 30 hours a week. more businesses are only hiring

at 29 hours or fewer so they are not considered as full-time. even the fed reserve says the president's health care law is hurting the economy. we are dealing with a budget when there is no better time to repeal the president's health care lots of people can get what they want, which is care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. >> on the budget, four years is a long time not to show up for work. it is a long time not to do your job. it is hard to imagine. this must be a budgetary masterpiece if it has taken or years to put budget on paper. we will look for to seeing that budget and hearing a debate on it and finding out how much is fact and how much is fiction. there is a big gap to fill.

>> all of the democrats can come up for a budget is $1 trillion increase in taxes. we'll find out which members of the united states senate are for balancing budgets, which ones are for continued irresponsibility, which ones want to rein in government spending, and which ones want to increase the deficit. it will make clear which members of the united states senate want to create jobs and which want to continue to rely upon government handouts. democrats will have the opportunity to explain to their voters why in four years the only solution they have for our fiscal problems are to raise taxes and increase spending and to do nothing to create a path for a bounce budget.

>> on a positive note, we are going to do a budget. i can tell you that this has been a top priority. when i go home to new hampshire and talking with people, i think it is positive that the senate democrats have committed to submitting a budget. on a negative note, from what has been released about their budget so far, they have indicated they will increase taxes by $1 trillion. i look at this carefully. i hope it is not true, but when trillion dollars tax increase without balancing the budget in a 10 year window and without saving the entitlement of grams for seniors who are out there -- entitlement programs for seniors out there. social security would go bankrupt in 2033. it would increase taxes by one

joint dollars that would not pay for progress -- programs. this is a time when we need much longer economic growth. i'm hearing from small businesses that they cannot afford the health care costs that are going up because of obamacare. they are having a hard time. they want to grow businesses, but please, do not increase taxes again. i have been hearing from the regulatory framework. if there is when trillion dollars of tax increase for the democrats, what would that do for businesses in terms of trying to grow the economy? the one way we can have the most rheumatic impact on our debt is to grow the economy. -- dramatic impact on our debt

is to grow the economy. i was disturbed by the president's decision to close one china mobile -- guantanamo bay and bringing osama bin laden's son-in-law to america. i want to ask how much we spent to ask him about al qaeda. i think this is a very important issue that the american people need to be aware of. we need to gather intelligence and prevent future attacks on our country. by the way, what was he doing in iran? we would like to get answers on that as well. thank you. >> i will see if there are any

questions. >> [inaudible] >> well, until we make our entitlement programs that the demographics of our country, you cannot save the hea syslthcarm t save america. we know the revenue side is completely irrelevant to solving this problem. we gave the president $650 billion or so in taxes by the expiration of the law and now we need to deal with a spending problem. we are doing part of it on the discretionary side and the c.r. will reflect that number. the second part is to deal with where there is a huge dachshund

are huge expenses, and that is on the entitlement side. there is -- where there are huge expenses, and that is on the eligibl entitlement side. whenever the president is willing to have that discussion , we are ready to have it. >> the president will be talking about grand bargain. how much do you expect to talk about other topics? immigration, guns? >> the c.r. will be open for amendment and the budget on a which will have 20 of amendments. we anticipate that the request to raise the debt ceiling will generate another discussion about solving the real problem. the only way to help america is to fix entitlement issue. nothing else will get the job done. we are hopeful that he will be

willing to step up with us and solve that problem. we are ready to talk about that. outreach is a good thing. i'm all for it. i have recommended to him that he had the rest of our members down in small dinners. reports were that it was a candid and fruitful discussion. i think having more of that rather than less of that is a good idea. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> house budget committee will mark paul ryan's 2014 budget proposal tomorrow. you can see live coverage on our companion network, c-span 3. president obama returns to capital hill to meet with house republicans tomorrow and senate republicans on thursday. on friday, he travels near

chicago to talk about energy and climate change. it is one of the largest laboratories for engineering and research. than 1000 scientists and engineers. in a few moments, the senate intelligence committee hears from the national intelligence commissioner and the head of the cia and fbi about global threats to the u.s.. in about two hours, the senate judiciary committee approved background checks for gun purchases and school safety. then a budget committee chairman paul ryan is a 2014 budget plan.

>> she does not get distracted by the details if they are not important. they often matter. she has an ability to stay focused on the big picture. how is what is happening in afghanistan affecting what they might be doing in the middle east? how is what is happening in the middle east affecting what they are trying to do in asia? she had a big sense of what the strategy is here. she is surrounded by people helping her. it allows her -- i talk about her little bit -- she can focus on what matters. she does not have to worry about whether lunch will serve -- the served or not. it will arrive while she thinks about the bigger picture ahe. >> booktv. >> automatic spending cuts

jeopardize the nation's safety and security. it was -- this is a little less than two hours. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the committee will come to water. we meet today in an open session, as we have done since 1994. to hear an hon classified briefing from our intelligence leaders on the threats that face our nation, hence the title. as members know, we will immediately follow this session with a close one. i will ask that members refrain from asking questions here that have classified answers. this hearing is really a unique

opportunity to inform the american public about the threats we face as a nation and world wide. let me begin by welcoming our witnesses and thanking them for being here. they are the director of national intelligence, who will provide the opening statement on behalf of the intelligence community, the director of the cia, new to the job, john brennan, the director of the fbi, bob mahler -- mueller, who is appearing in his last world wide hearing before this committee. you never know. the director of the defense intelligence agency, michael flynn. the director of the national counter-terrorism center, matt olsen.

and ambassador filled -- phil goldberg. thank you for your statement, which i have read. it has been submitted and we very much appreciated. it is clear of the threats to the united states are many. they are diffused and complex. we face a continuing threat at home from terrorist attacks. most notably from al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, but also from homegrown extremists, including the attempted times square bomber. it is notable that the statement for the record includes assessment that, due to recent losses, the core of al qaeda and

pakistan is probably on able to carry out large, complex attacks in the west, although its desire to do so has not changed. this appears to be a stronger statement than in the past about the effect of counter-terrorism operations against al qaeda. since last year, our staff has been keeping a tally of terrorism-related arrests in the united states. with the arrests, on march 5, for conspiring to provide support for terrorists, there have now been 105 terrorism- related arrests in the united states in the past four years. we have listed these. that is the number appeared 105 arrests in the last four years.

in our federal criminal court system, the arrests would most likely lead to a conviction or a guilty plea. if those arrests have not resulted in conviction or guilty plea, it is only because the case is still ongoing. another indicator of the success of our criminal justice system, in prosecuting terrorists, is that in 2011, the department of justice released a list of terrorism trials conducted since 2001. and reported a total of 438 convictions from september 11, 2001, to december 31, 2010. in those nine years, 438 convictions in federal courts. we have also been briefed recently on the detention and arrest of obama -- osama bin

laden's son-in-law and al qaeda spokesman. i like to commend the agency's work to bring him into the united states and prosecute him in a federal criminal court, where he faces a life sentence. as a terrorist threat has succeeded, a threat of espionage has grown. we have seen a large scale denial of service attacks against united states banks and recent public reports, including by the security -- computer security, about massive cyber penetrations and a loss of property from united states businesses. i am very concerned also about the instability that seems to be festering across northern africa, from mali to egypt and beyond. breeding and hiring a new generation of extremists.

some are on an able and unwilling to take action against these terrorist groups. the rest of the world would need to focus energy and attention to preventing a safe haven and launching pad for future attacks. in syria, there is a massive and still growing humanitarian disaster under way, with no end in sight, as the regime and the opposition appeared nearly at a stalemate. there is a possibility the president would become sufficiently desperate to use its chemical weapons stockpile. i note the statement includes exactly that warning. i know the president has expressed the use of chemical weapons would be a deadline for the united states. i would predict the united states senate would demand a strong and swift response should the use of sep what -- such

weapons occurred. syria is not the only state to be making headlines. north korea has claimed a third nuclear weapons test, displayed a mobile ballistic missile, and demonstrated the capability of the missile. the regime is now disavowing the 1953 armistice with the south. there is perhaps nowhere else on earth where the capacity to wreak enormous damage is matched by the possibility of north korea using their nuclear weapons. both the syrians and the north korean example demonstrate the need to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. revolutionary guards are growing older and more capable. these and many other threats and challenges faced the

intelligence community and play a very critical role in providing warning to the united states policymakers and to providing insight to shape their policy decisions. unfortunately topic they are being asked to do this work under the self-inflicted damage of sequestration. i know you have been planning for sequestration and would like to speak to its effect. i have an amendment currently on the senate floor which would provide a community with as much flexibility as possible to limit the cuts made by sequestration. in the same way as the rest of the department of defense, to make sure intelligence efforts can proceed as much as possible. we may now turn to the chairman for his opening remarks. >> thank you.

i join in welcoming all of our witnesses today. particularly john brennan, as his first testimony as director of the cia. congratulations. to bob, i had a conversation with him when his last term was ending, and implored him to think about staying. i will expect to have that conversation again with you. i may not be successful this time, but you have provided great leadership at a great agency and all of america is safer because of the kind of leadership you have provided. we do not want to miss any opportunity to say thanks. i particularly appreciate all of you being here today to talk about the threats that face our nation. they come in all forms. terrorism, espionage, cyber, and counterintelligence.

from all forms of the globe. today, the american people have a chance to hear firsthand from those on the front lines what these threats mean to the security of our nation. let me start out by noting that today's hearing follows a lively discussion over the past month about the potential for the domestic use of drums. -- drones. this debate brought new attention to the difficulty congress faces in getting information from the executive branch. the intelligence community is obligated under the national security act to keep the congressional intelligence committees fully informed of its intelligence activities, including covert action. we cannot do the oversight american people expect from us if every branch of information becomes a protected bible. as a group, our witnesses

represent the entire intelligence community. each of you has made a commitment to this committee to provide information when it is requested. we understand there may be exceptions to this rule. we are now operating in an environment with the exception has come the role -- become the rule. we have heard it said over the past year that core al qaeda has been decimated and is on the run. it's pakistan-based leadership is crumbling under the pressure of u.s. and allied counter- terrorism efforts. new threats posed by al qaeda affiliates and similar organizations are emerging and possibly expanding in places like yemen, north africa, and molly -- mali. in the past six months, terrorist attacks have claimed innocent american lives. these attacks show radical and extreme ideologies are not going away anytime soon. instead, these terrorist

organizations are regrouping and gathering strength. when we entered afghanistan in october, 2001, our goal was to put the al qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the taliban regime out of business. now, as we prepare to leave afghanistan 12 years later, the taliban and similar groups in afghanistan and pakistan seem to have mostly survived years of counter insurgency and counter- terrorism. this raises the question of whether these groups will be able to create a stationary -- sanctuary like we saw before 9/11. as we face new threats, we are badly overdue for a long-term policy that allows us to fully and effectively interrogate terrorist detainees.

osama bin laden's son-in-law was face -- faced justice. i firmly believe this administration's refusal to place new detainees at guantanamo bay is hurting our ability to collect intelligence. it seems as though we now either just killed terrorists or give them a round of warnings. dead terrorists do not talk. and the ones we do capture, after 50 minutes or 90 minutes, we are not likely to get the intelligence we need. three years ago, we had the same conversation following the failed christmas day bombing. i am disappointed this scenario seems to be repeating itself. whether he is ultimately tried in federal court is not the primary question. it is whether we maximize our opportunity to gathered good

intelligence up front. waiting for a potential plea deal before getting access again, as we saw with the christmas day bomber, is, i believe, simply the wrong approach. the concern we have returned to the dangerous pre-9/11 mind-set where international terrorists are treated as ordinary criminals, this is a mistake we should not repeat. the administration paz's handling also seems to directly contradict the national defense authorization act, which specifically called for individuals like him to be held in military custody. i understand this undermined the spirit of the military custody requirement. what i believe is an abuse of the waiver provision, the military created broad accepted categories under which they could continue to avoid placing

terrorists in military custody. i would ask if someone like abu ghaith is not held, who will be? it merits our close attention. as does the conflict in syria. it is important to ensure the intelligence community can give us a clear reading into these hot spots and what may arrive over the horizon. cyber espionage and intrusions are growing every day. if we are going to prevent the sighting -- syphoning off of hackers and nation states alike, congress must work with the private sector in a cooperative way. we must pass voluntary information sharing legislation that completely protect companies from the threat of lawsuits. the government must put its own

cyber house in water and we must make sure our criminal penalties are sufficient to punish and deter a cyber intruders. today is your opportunity to give the country a real glimpse of what it means to be on the front lines of the intelligence committee. -- community. spending cuts combined with the verse threats is a threat. i am confident the men and women of the intelligence community who worked so hard every day in defense of the nation will rise to this challenge and not only get the job done, but, under your leadership, they will do it well. i thank you and i look forward to a discussion with our witnesses. >> thank you for those comments. we will now proceed. director, you have the floor. you will make the comments on behalf of everyone.

then we will be able to answer questions. the round will be five minutes because we have a classified hearing. we will go according to seniority, alternating sites. please proceed. >> distinguished members of the committee, we are here to present the 2013 world wide assessment. i want to speak very briefly about the alpha and omega of tenure in the intelligence committee. bob mueller is a very distinguished director of the fbi and a tremendous colleague for me in this job and the previous ones i have held. i could not be more delighted and more proud to have john brennan confirmed and installed as the director of central intelligence agency. it is my view john will go down

as one of the distinguished directors of the cia. these remarks and our two statements for the record, one on classified and a much more detailed classified one collective judge -- reflect the collective judgment of the men and women in the intelligence community. it is our privilege, those of us here and those of us who are not, to serve in these positions. i will discuss our solemn duty to try to protect them. i have serious reservations about conducting open hearings on a worldwide threat, especially on the question and answer session. it is important to keep the american public informed about the threats our nation faces. as you know, we are ready to answer any and all of your questions. an open hearing on intelligence matters is something of a contradiction in terms. our statements for the record

and your opening statements can be viewed in advance, but our answers to your questions cannot carry out their attempts to avoid revealing classified information sometimes leads to misinterpretation or accusations we are being circumspect for improper reasons. when we asked to discuss certain matters in closed sessions, it is not to evade, but rather to protect our intelligence sources and methods, and, to be sensitive to the often delicate relations we have to our allies and partners. they listen to and watch these hearings carefully, as i have -- as i have learned the hard way. the topic for most on our minds this year is sequestration. you have not seen much public discourse on the impact of these indiscriminate cuts on intelligence. we have not been on the talk

shows and you do not read much about it on the printed media. let me now be blunt. for you and for the american people sequestration forces the intelligence community to reduce all intelligence activities and functions without regard to impact on our missions. in my judgment, sequestration jeopardize our nation's safety and security and this jeopardy will increase over time. the national intelligence program, which i manage, is spread across six departments and two independent agencies. much is included in the budget. for that portion, the congress directed that the national intelligence program use an even more onerous set of rules to carry out these cuts proposed on the defense department. this restrictive program project in activity compounds the damage because it restricts

our ability to manage where to take reductions in a balanced and rational way. accordingly, the size of the budget cuts, over $4 billion, about 7%, will directly compel us to do less with less. some examples, and i will have to be circumspect here in an open session. we are prepared to speak more specifically in a classified section. we will reduce -- we will increase the risk of strategic surprise. this includes possibly furloughing thousands of fbi employees funded in the national intelligence program. our cyber efforts will be impacted. this is an area where we need to keep ahead of rapid technology advances to maintain and increase access to adversaries, as well as provide warning of a

cyber attack against the u.s. dairy critical analysis and tools will be cut back. we will reduce global coverage and may risk missing the early signs of a threat. our response to customers will suffer, as well we will let go over 5000 contractors and the number may grow, and they are an integral part of the intelligence committee. this is on top of the thousands we have let go in the previously years. we will reduce coverage. virtually all of the 39 major systems acquisition across the intelligence committee have been -- will be wanted. -- we did home, can at -- will be what did -- -- wounded. we will be forced to take them

in seven months. these condensed time lines magnify the impact these cuts will have. in response, our approach starts with the premise that the mission comes first. our two highest priorities are to protect our most valuable resource so we can focus on the threats we face, and support overseas operations. a civilian work force works 247 around the world and is crucial to performing the mission. it is our professionals who will provide the resilience and ingenuity to help compensate for the other cuts. i am resolutely committed to minimizing the number and length of furloughs required because of the severe impact of morale. i plan to follow the secretary of defense's surly -- sterling example. let me emphasize here that we are not arguing against taking

our share of the budget reductions. what i am saying is that we must manage this budget price -- crisis and continue our meat -- our missions. i plan to submit a reprogramming act to help us cut more rationally. i am asking for your support and the other intelligence oversight committees were exploited -- expedited. i want to thank you for your leadership and your care for the mission of the intelligence community and introducing a bill that would give us that' flexibility. i have seen this movie before. 20 years ago, i served as the director of the defense intelligence agency. we were enjoying to reap the peace dividend.

we reduced the intelligence committee by 23% during the late 1990's, we close cia agencies, caught analysts, and neglected basic infrastructure needs, such as power, space, and cooling, and we let our facilities decay. most devastatingly, we distorted the workforce badly. all of that was reversed in the wake of 9/11. thanks to the support of congress over the last decade, we read the rich to rebuild the intelligence committee. now, if we are not careful, we risk another damaging, downward spiral. i will do all i can to prevent history from repeating the cycle. to be clear, the scope and magnitude of the cuts underway will be long-lasting. on like more directly observable sequestration in tax, like shorter hours at public parks and along the security lines at airports, the

degradation to intelligence will be insidious. it will be gradual and almost invisible, until we have an intelligence failure. let me turn now to a briefly laid review of global threats and challenges, although madam chairman, you and the vice chair have done a good job of that already. my almost 50 years in intelligence, i have not confronted a more diverse array of threats and challenges of run the world, which you both described. to me, this makes sequestration even more income gris. s. incongruitie threats are growing more interconnected and viral. they could quickly set off disruptions that affect national interests. our definition of war now

includes a softer version. we can add a cyber and financial to the list of weapons being used against us. such attacks can be deniable. our statement this year leads to cyber. it is hard to overemphasize its significance. increasingly, state actors are gaining and using cyber expertise. they apply cyber techniques and capabilities to achieve strategic objectives by gathering sensitive information from public and private sector entities controlling the content and flow of information. these capabilities put all sections of our country at risk from government and private networks to critical infrastructures. some terrorist organizations are interested in developing offensive cyber capabilities. cyber criminals are using a growing black market.

this year, we include national resources affecting national resources because shifts have national security implications. many countries that are extremely important to u.s. interests are living with water and food stressed that can destabilize governments. this includes afghanistan and pakistan, south asia, yemen, the arab world in many other nations states. water challenges include problems with quality and quantity and flooding. some countries will almost certainly exert leverage over there never is -- over their neighbors to preserve their own water interests. water infrastructure could be considered a viable target for terrorists. in in the united states, germany, japan, less than 50% of

household expenditures are for fit. -- less than 15% of household expenditures are for food. terrorists militant, and crime groups are used to undermine government authority. introduction of a livestock are plant disease could be a greater threat to the united states in global food system in a direct attack on the food system intended to kill human spirit there will be security concerns with respect to help the pandemic, energy and climate change, environmental stressors are not just humanitarian issues. illegitimately threatened regional stability. the threat from core al qaeda and the potential for a massive coordinated attack on the united states is diminished but the global g. hottest movement is more diversified, the

centralized and persistent -- the global jihadist movement is more diversified, centralized and persistent. the turmoil in the arab world has bought a spike in threats to u.s. interests. the rise in new government and egypt, tunisia, yemen and libya, provide openings for opportunistic individuals and groups. these and other regions of the world, extremists can take advantage of the minister counter-terrorism capabilities, most especially a high proportion of unemployed young males. weapons of mass destruction development is another major threat to u.s. interests. north korea has the michaud capabilities that threatened the united states -- has demonstrated capabilities that threaten the united states.

we believe north korea has taken steps towards fielding a system although remains untested. they used a launch vehicle to put a satellite into ordered -- into orbit/ these developments have been accompanied with a crest of public rhetoric was the united states. iran continues to develop technical expertise in areas including nuclear reactors and ballistic missiles from which it can draw nuclear weapons. these advancements strengthen our assessment that tehran has a scientific and industrial capacity to produce nuclear weapons. this makes the issue its political will to do so. such a decision will reside with the supreme leader and we do not know if he will decide to build nuclear weapons. the united states and our allies are tracking syria's stockpiles,

particularly its camel -- chemical and biological warfare components. its advanced chemical weapons program has the potential to inflict mass casualty is. it adds are concerned that the increasingly beleaguered regime might be preparing to use chemical weapons against the syrian people. n governmenton groups or individuals in syria can also gain access to such materials -- non governmental groups or individuals in syria can also gain access to such materials. countries are experiencing levels of violence and political backer sliding. -- back slidings. extremist parties will probably solidify their employ this year. after almost two years of conflict in syria, the erosion

of the capability is accelerating. we see this in the regime's territorial losses and logistic shortages. they're aggressive violence and security conditions have led to increase civilian casualties. this violent off the company's major political upheaval being protected by the leaks trying to retain control. this violence and economic dislocation has led to more than 2 million syria is being displaced, internally and the externally. in iran, leaders are exploiting to spread influence abroad and undermine the united states and our allies. iran continues to be a destabilizing force in the region, providing weapons and training for syrian forces and standing by the syrian

opposition. iran's of office to secure regional dominance achieve limited results in the fall of the assad would be major strategic loss for tehran. sectarian issues are rising. there was a rise in vehicle suicide bombings by eye, and -- by al qaeda iraq. iraq is producing and exporting oil at its highest levels in the two decades. they remain resilient and capable of challenging u.s. and international goals. the coalition drawdown will have an impact on afghanistan's economy which is likely to decline after 2014. in pakistan, the government has no -- made no effort to [indiscernible]

this past year, the pakistani armed forces continued operations in tribal areas which have been safe havens for al qaeda and the taliban. pakistan saw fewere domestic attacks from the militant group. violence, corruption and this cretinism in africa will threaten u.s. interests this year -- and extremism in africa will threaten u.s. interests this year. we still see a result conflict between sudan and south sudan, extremist attacks in nigeria, a persistent conflict in central africa. china is supplementing its more invest military capabilities but altering maritime law enforcement to support its claims in the south and east tennessee's. it continues its informations

dealing campaigns. russia will continue to resist putting more international pressure on syria or iran and display its sensitivity to missile defense. let the america and caribbean contend with weak institutions -- latin america and caribbean contend with weak institutions and trafficking which pose a threat to the united states. roughly 20 million human beings are bing traffic around the ckedd -- are being traffic are around the world. every country is a source or destination for human trafficking. in some, given the men complexity of our global responsibilities -- given the complexity of our global responsibilities,

[indiscernible] thank you for your attention. >> thank you very much, director and for the written comments as well. director mueller, in a quick question, i mentioned the 100 terrorist related arrests in united states since january of 2009. and the number of convictions since 2011 at over 400. has the fbi been impeded in its ability to conduct investigations or collect intelligence from terrorist suspects because of the need to read miranda rights or present -- prevent a suspect to a court? >> it is hard to be -- to response specifically. there may be an occasion where

it was an issue but for the most part, the answer is no. if you talk to agents, they would tell you is their ability to elicit information by developing rapport with individuals. that is a prime mover in terms of providing the appropriate intelligence. let me put in context what i think is the under estimating of the ability of the criminal justice system to produce intelligence. if there is a terrorist attack, i understand it will be on us. i'm concerned about maximizing the access to intelligence. one of the thing that is underestimated the ability of the criminal justice system to do just that. there is not ben -- there are very few cases where we have not ultimately obtained the cooperation of the individual.

going through the criminal justice system. we have had a number of cases where we have a convicted person and because of our plea- bargain in our system, we got the cooperation we need which is led to are testifying in cases -- to our testifying in cases. if you look at three cases prominent in terms of providing intelligence, you start with david hedley of the chicago opened the door to us in terms of the mumbai attacks. then the plot to bomb the new york city subway and another individual. in every case, we look at the best option. in some cases the military

tribunal option is not the best option. the ability of the criminal justice system to produce intelligence is often overlooked. >> give very much. either for director clapper or mr. brennan, in light of recent warnings by north korea, including the renunciation of the cease-fire with south korea after six decades, does the ic assess they could take provocative action that could lead to a renewal of active hostilities with the south? >> absolutely. having followed korea ever since i served there in the mid- 1980s's as director of intelligence, i'm concerned about the accidents the new young leader -- the actions of the new young leader.

the rhetoric is an indicator of their attitude in perhaps intent. i'm very concerned about what they might do. they are -- if they chose, theuy y could initiate provocative action against the south. >> i agree with director clapper. it is a dynamic time now with the new leader. it underscores the importance of making sure our analytic a collection capabilities are as strong as possible. we are talking about the elements that have strategic importance and potential consequence for u.s. interests, not just in north east asia but globally. this is one of the areas that we need to pay close attention to. >> thank you. mr. vice chairman. >> director clapper, let me address your comments relative to sequestration.

we are spending too much money in washington. i do not think there is disagreement about that. the reduction in $1.20 trillion in spending is not a bad idea but your reference to the way we are doing it is exactly right. it is a foolish way to reduce spending to tell every aspect of the federal government you do not have a choice. you are mandated to reduce spending across the board, whatever the dollar amount is, in your agency are office. let me give you the assurance and everybody here that the chairman, myself and -- we are committed to ensuring the intelligence committee -- community does not suffer a lack of resources. what in the constitution is

aware about is that it is the role of congress to provide for the national security of americans. we intend to honor our obligations. you and those that work under you are very professional and you are doing your job. the arctic is doing exactly what we ask you to do. we want you to know we are committing to do everything within our power to ensure the resources are there to allow you to continue to do what you are asked to do every single day. >> i very much appreciate that. i think on behalf of the intelligence community, now more than ever, we are dependent on -- particularly our oversight committees -- to be our stewards and advocate. i am not suggesting we will not take our fair share of the cuts. all we're asking for is a latitude on how to take them to

minimize the damage. >> i knowy ou mean -- you mean it exactly that way. we will have their back on this. it will not be easy but we will work hard. >> the point of personal privilege -- i have to go to the continuing resolution. may i respond to your comments in terms of the state of play? we have a continuing resolution on the floor. this does not deal with the sequester. that has been negotiated by the howard -- the higher powers. my job along with senator shelby's is to move the continuing resolution. we are working steadily to do that. but the money is for local and in terms of flexibility you just ask for, we will not have that

in our bill. we were told that is a poisoned pill. i would like that as we go through the rest of the day, we could talk to see if we can have an amendment that would accomplish that. we were told by the house and by others that this was a poison pill. i would like to do everything i can to get you the money and the administrator from mark -- fr amwork. i can seay nothing but positive things about senator shelby -- i can say nothing but positive things about senator shelby. but we need help. if we could do that, we would. we do want to work with you. we so admire you. >> if i may just again in the

complexity of ppa's, we're asking to be treated identically . we have been singled out for small, exacting ppa's which restricts the latitude to move money away -- to move money around to litigate the damage. >> the only thing this amendment would do that's being introduced today is the view that authority -- is to give you that authority. i will like you to give it to senators reid, boehner, mcconnell and the house democratic leadership as well. i always hoped a higher power would be on my side.

we will have a new pope and i would like you to have new flexibility but it will take a higher power and this is what you need to show. >> to give very much. shall we continue? much.nk you very shall we continue? >> obviously we are still in the stage of remorse relative to the death of four brave americans in bank of the very the american people have demanded answers -- four brave americans in bengha zi. the american people have demanded answers. i realize we are in an open hearing. what i would like to ask is to tell the american people, what

are our lessons learned here as we move forward? we know we have a lot of other vulnerable spots around the world. what can you tell us about the progress towards bringing these murderers to justice? >> first of all senator, one lesson in this is a greater emphasis on forest protection for our diplomatic facilities. -- force protection for our diplomatic facilities. i think a short fall for us having a better appreciation of the tactical facility. the other lesson is do not do talking points are classified talking points. >> with regard to the

investigation, since this occurred, we have had teams on the ground in tripoli and elsewhere around the world conducting the investigation. with regard to the cooperation of the libyan authorities, there is a willingness exhibited by their actions to cooperate. however, it is difficult particularly in benghazi. we have received cooperation from the libyan authorities to continue to coordinate with them. i will say the investigation had not been stymied. i believe we will prove to be fruitful. >> taking very much. -- thank you very much. the next four.

senator rockefeller. >> thank you, madam chair. i cannot help, director c lapper and john brennan, bring up the subject saxby did in his opening comments. talk was just given about a good relationship between the intelligence community and congress. what happened over the last couple weeks was -- is a threat. it is a threat to trust between us and you, us towards you, you towards us. what basically happened was we were given certain things which we requested primarily because

you are up for confirmation had we not been given those things which we requested, the confirmation would not have had the votes. it is a terrible situation. i think you are superb. i have been through every cia director and i think you are the best. but the irony was that we were given certain things to look at then we were told that as we did that and got our staff to participate, this goes all the

way back to 2001, then minders, as i sat with my marine intelligence expert, there was a minder sent in. i was not aware that person would be there. that was an insult to me. and i kicked the person out. ave to find a way for us to trust each other. i do not think we may be mutually but in any event, we have not figured it out. things after the confirmation, went directly back to the way they were from 2001 to 2007. we had a classified briefing,

all of our staff was kicked out. with one exception, two acceptance. i was out race. -- with one exception, twwo exceptions. i was outraged. we were eager to do it -- the first bill passed after 9/1 allow the fbi and cia to talk to each other. maybe we need another bill to talk to us openly, more than a half. it is a real problem. john brennan, i do not think this is your instant -- your instinct but during your 4 hour grilling, you were superb.

we cannot be told things that could be in our purvey to look at which in fact have nothing to look at that is a threat to anybody, that we cannot have that. for that our staff cannot be in attendance. what would happen if we had you here and all those behind you have to stay out of the room? that is a comparable situation. i am not a lawyer, i am not an intelligence analyst or specialist. i need advice, i need staff. i have a superb one. as we all do. is there a way in your mind that we can somehow come to an understanding which makes this program or problem work of the way it should so that we are comfortable with each other but you do not protect yourself beyond where you have to so we can trust each other and really

concentrate. >> let me start and then i know john has views on this. i've done confirmation three times and as more than a body should stand. what i say may not be entirely satisfactory to you. i think all of us think trust is fundamental to the relationship between the intelligence committee and our oversight committees. the oversight committees have the responsibility, unlike others, because so much of what we do is classified and secret. we recognize the doubly important responsibility you have on behalf of the american public since not everything we

do can be revealed. as a general rule, that which is under our control and activities that we manage and oversee i think our record has been pretty good, pretty consistent in sharing that with you. we depend so heavily on you for your support. when there are documents that elsewhere in the executive branch or when we are attempting to abide by a longstanding practice which has been practiced by both republican and democratic administrations of executive privilege, i think that is where we begin to have problems. for that which is fully under our control, i think i can

pledge to you that we will endeavor to burn your trust. john. >> like most hostages, i was excluded from ransom negotiations during my confirmation process but one of the things i have committed to myself is to familiarize myself instantly with the rules and procedures that govern the interaction with this committee and other oversight committees for programs and activities that fall under my purview. i what to speak with the chairman and vice-chairman about this. i do not know what those have been here 24. -- heretofor. what i really want to do is have as much dialogue as possible with you so that trust can be built up so we are able to address these issues earlier. on some of the matters related

to like the benghzai talking address it need doto as soon as possible. we have a clear understanding of what your interests and requirements are and we need to do what we can sue you can fulfill your responsibilities of oversight. >> either others are i will continue this. >> thank you, senator rockefeller. the olc opinions in particular, particularly with our obligation which is robust oversight, you cannot know whether something is carried out by the executive branch within the law unless you see those opinions which phrase the law.

i think that is the problem. it is very difficult to look at them. not to look at them and to make judgments without understanding. i believe you with that. senator coats. >> madame chair, thank you. director clapper, of all the topics you chose to talk about, you put cyber at the top. i think i understand why. we are undergoing a major transformation intertwined with digital technology and the internet that has profound implications for the u.s. economic and national security. i was disappointed we were not able to put a legislative package together in the last congress that failed in the

waning days of congress. the president followed up with an executive order. mr. brennan, you are part of putting that order together. it is limited in terms of what it can do. i'm hoping we can work together to fashion a proper legislative proposal that will enhance our ability to better understand and deal with this ever-growing critical threat to our economy and to our national security. in that regard, the executive order from the president indicated a strong willingness to share information from the government with private industry, but the hangup is that the reverse information from private industry shared with the government hit some

roadblocks. you need some incentives to provide private industry to feel secure in terms of their sharing proprietary information and impact on its competitiveness with others and so forth. providing such things as liability coverage and so forth, ensuring that the standards that are set are compatible with industry standards are critical issues. i think i am making a statement in that regard. hopefully we can address that and keep that at the level of priority where you put it. i know the majority leader has said we need to set up. unfortunately, we are caught up in debate and issues related to the fiscal issues.

this is a serious subject we need to get on. sooner rather than later. i want to briefly ask you if you have anything to say about cyber, that is fine, but this one question -- with the ratcheting sanctions against iran in terms of its pursuit of nuclear weapons it ability development -- capability development, a, have you seen any glimpse of possible change in the decision-making and will of the leadership that will decide whether or not they will comply in any sense at all with requests made by the global community, and b, are there concerns relative to the

cooperation between north korea and iran relative to holistic missile technology and other aspects that might give iran -- modify the timetable for the ability to get this capability? >> for the first part of your question at the second part for the relationship between north korea and iran, that might be better addressed in closed session. clearly the sanctions have had profound impact on iran's economy. by any measure, whether it is inflation are unemployment availability, commodities, etc.. that situation is getting worse. at the same time, these publicly, overtly change in

iranian leadership, the supreme we can gopproach, into perhaps more detail our discussion in it closed -- in a close setting for some indications that might be of interest to you. i will let it go at that. >> fair enough. >> i would add to your point related to cyber, the seriousness and the diversity of this threat the country faces in the cyber domain are increasing on a daily basis. i think this is one of the security challenges we face. the threat will continue and grow. we need to reduce the vulnerabilities and take steps. i hope congress will move forward with legislation and

issues that you raised on sharing liability art key once. -- are key ones. >> what john just said, you really highlighted what i call organizing principles. they have to be covered. there are standards that would apply both to the government and the private sector. the other thing i want to mention is to consider civil liberties and privacy. >> i assume both of you would acknowledge that time is of the evidence -- essense here. >> yes, sir. >> the sooner we get this done, the better. >> thank you, madame chair. director, congratulations.

i appreciate the chance to speak about a number of issues. i will ask some additional questions about drones. for today, my congratulations. director clapper, i want to ask you what i asked about year ago, and that was a matter of surveillance and what the rules are that intelligence agency would have to follow in order to electronically track the movements and location of an american inside the united states. i asked you about this a year ago. you said that your lawyers were studying this and i hope that we can get some answers to these questions. first, if anyon intelligence agency wants to track an american inside the united states, how much evidence do they need? >> first, in the case of nsa and

cia, there are strictures against tracking american citizens in the united states for foreign intelligence purposes. i think i may ask director mueller to speak to this. what you are referring to falls into the lawn for cement criminal area. >> i do want to hear from director mueller, but i'm trying to get some general principles out with respect to intelligence. you have cited from areas that are relevant, what i'm trying to do is get an unclassified answer to a question about what the law authorizes. >> the law is embedded in the foreign intelligence act. it was extended for five years.

it places strict shifters on -- strictures on that intelligence community tracking of americans. that is overseen strictly by the court and the executive branch, both by my office and the attorney general's. there are strict rules. >> as you know, there are some fundamental questions about the balance chain security and liberty -- between security and liberty. can make a direct answer to the question about when the intel community needs to get a war and -- warrant. second, the second stances -- the circumstances when no evidence is needed at all.

the law does not justify whether a warrant is required. >> i would ask director mueller to help me with that question. >> i'm anxious to hear from director mueller, but i also need to hear from you with respect to the intelligence community. i asked you this a year ago. >> senator, and the case of cia and nia who are engaged in foreign intelligence collection , that is a practice they do not engage in. >> director mueller? >> senator, let me start by saying we treat them the same. there is no distinction between our intelligence cases in terms youndertaking the thactivity

suggest and criminal cases. that being said, put some things in an area where we are seeing where things are going to go. the standard for a warrant is still up in the air. for a particular monitoring, that would have to be more fact- based. >> director mueller, you have identified the exact reason why i'm trying to get an answer from director clapper. there is no question we will watch what the courts will do in the days ahead. the question is, what will be the rights of americans while that is still being flushed out? it does not specify whether a warrant is required. i want you to know that i will

be asking this question of you just like we did with respect targeted killing, which we to the legal documents for finally got after seven requests until we get an answer. i think americans are entitled to a direct answer. thank you, madame chair. >> would you like director mueller to respond? >> i think he did. he gave a very thoughtful answer, which is the courts are still wrestling with the various interpretations of it. that is a correct answer by director mueller, but we still have a question remaining -- what are the rights of americans as of today while the courts are wrestling with this? and that is a matter we have not gotten an answer to. i will follow it up in the second round. >> would you like to respond? >> with the law not having been

totally identified, we think the most -- we take the most conservative approach. >> fair enough. >> thank you. next is senator rubio. >> thank you, madame chair. i want to talk about egypt. i want to have a clear understanding about the security apparatus and the military. it has been seen as a professional organization for a long time upholding its international obligations. what is the status of that now? especially with the recent political changes and the reelection of president morsi? and the coming of power of the muslim brotherhood? has that changed the nature of

the organization? >> i think the military as an institution in egypt has attempted to sustain its status and stature as a professional military organization and not be drawn into the internal local of peoples going on. -- upheaveals going on. >> what is the most significant security risk that they face? we recently have seen jet planes and tanks and so forth, but it strikes me that the real security concern should be toward upholding the peace treaty with neighbors and providing law enforcement in the streets. can anyone comment on what the

real security risks are? especially that egypt is not at risk of being invaded by any foreign army anytime soon. does the weapons acquiring reflect the real security needs? >> that is their policy decision. particularly with security. they recognize they have a challenge over there. their intent is to -- they wish to support the peace treaty. the fundamental challenge that faces egypt has to do with the economy. it is kind of a spiral. when it impacts on the economy has been a decline in tourism. that is related to the security situation. they recognize that. they have internal challenges.

>> the real security challenge is internal. strict a has gotten pretty dangerous -- street crime has gotten pretty dangerous, especially in cairo. the other question is broader. that is a general direction that they are heading in government lies. there was an election that questions reforms of the constitution in egypt. where is egypt heading? where is the muslim brotherhood or president morsi? is he heavily influenced by them? is there democratic transition? is their push for an islamist type stay? or is there still a flux? >> i think that latter, the

third condition is still in flux. the leadership of egypt is influenced by pragmatic aspects and challenges like the state of the economy and the security in the streets. however, at the same time, the ideology is influenced by the muslim brotherhood. that is evident in some of the constitutional provisions, particularly with the rights of women. >> the u.s. policies, u.s. aid policy toward egypt would weigh heavily on the pragmatic side of the equation for the leaders. and in their ability to receive financing they need to stabilize their economy and provide the gear they need to provide security so people feel safe in egypt again. >> yes, sir, but not at any price.

they are very sensitive about their sovereignty to the extent at which we are anyone else -- that is an issue for the egyptian policy apparatus to decide. >> ok. thank you. >> thank you, senator rubio. senator udall. >> thank you, madame chair. the documents are very readable. thank you for the work your team has done. let me turn to the 6000 page report this committee conducted a on the cia detention program. i was at director brennan's hearing.

i was very concerned about the interrogation program by the cia. director brennan's shock at that reports contents -- i understand you had a similar reaction to the report? were you also taken aback by the contents? >> yes. i was taken aback by its length and breath and all that. i also think that i would counsel hearing from the agency and its response -- i would ask john to comment on that. >> i want to get to that director's comment as well. let me turn to director mueller in an interview with vanity fair in 2008. you were asked about terrorist attacks and whether they were

instructed thanks to intelligence up taint through the use of the cia -- gathered through the use of cia. have you seen any information since april 2009 to change your views on the topic? >> i was trying to express -- i was not aware of the practices of the facts. >> thank you. i went to follow up with you later. i will turn to director brennan. congratulations on your appointment. i appreciate your involvement with the hostage negotiations. i look for to working with you in your new role. in her confirmation hearing, we discussed the committee study and the importance of putting reforms in place to prevent

past the stick some happening again. i also pushed for the committee's report -- to prevent past mistakes happen again. i also push push for the committees are foreport. last week before you were on the job for the first day, newspaper story was published quoting a senior intelligence official who claimed that the cia is eject ink to majority of the 6000 page report, which has 35,000 footnotes direct resource to cia documents. there was numerous inaccurate statements about the committees report, including a has has 20 recommendations, which it does not. it appears that the unnamed intelligence official was unfamiliar with the committee's report, i'm concerned that despite the chairman going out

of her way to make sure that only certain individuals have access to the report, the cia personnel are leaking what may not be the official response to the report. it seems unnamed officials are putting you in an awkward position before you even have a chance to weigh in as a new cia director. the questions and i will run through them -- do you believe views despitea's official seem unfamiliar with the report? second, do anticipate looking into the leak? finally, provide comments -- can you give the committee a sense of when we can expect the cia's

comments? >> thank you. first of all, i will not speculate on who might have been responsible for the information that appeared in the newspaper. i know that people are looking into that right now to see whether or not there was any disclosure of information. there is a real interest in the part of the cia to be responsive to this committee and that report. i have had a number of discussions. the comments will be conducted and done within a month's time. hopefully before then. there have been a number of conversations with members of this committee on that. it is my firm resolve to look at what the cia has pulled together in response to that report. >> thank you.

i look forward to your firm resolve as soon as possible to this important report from which we need to learn the lessons of we do not repeat the mistakes that were made. thank you and congratulations. >> thank you. senator collins. >> thank you, madame chair. director, in your opening statements, you painted a bleak and dark picture of a very dangerous world. i share your concern about the impact of sequestration on the intelligence community. senator udall and i have introduced what i believe to be the only bipartisan flexibility bill that would give agencies that ability to set priorities,

submit their plans to the appropriations committee the way you do with reprogramming request now in an enhanced reprogramming authority. i talked to senator mikulski about it. she has a similar vision in mind. i know the chairman also has some amendment dealing with the ici.c. i want to encourage you to make the consequences of sequestration known to the senate leaders and the house leaders because that is where the decision is being made. it is critical that they hear from you and from all members of this panel about what the consequences would be, particularly in light of the dyer threat situation that we face. -- dire threat situation that we

face. i want to turn to iran. servicessenate armed' committee, the current diplomatic and economic efforts to stop iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon capability are not working. do you agree with that assessment? >> not completely. i think i indicated earlier that that it is having a huge impact on iran. they'll will have an influence on the decision. we can see indications of that. where i do agree is that the sanctions and thus far have not induced to change on the iranian government policy. >> i think the fact that they

have not produced a change suggests that they are not working. let me follow up with mr. goldberg with the second question. the president has exempted nine countries from fully complying with the sanctions on iran because they have demonstrated a significant reduction in the purchase of iranian products. these nine countries include some of iran's biggest trading partners, including china, india, turkey. turkey was granted an exemption even after it conceded that it had helped iran conduct energy exports the acquisition of billions of dollars of old. -- gold. what is your assessment of what would happen to iran's fiscal

and economic situation if these nine countries were not exempt from the u.s. sanctioned policy? >> what i can tell you is that the overall iranian oil that is being exported is down considerably. there were workarounds within the exceptions made for those who reduced over time. that is a constant evaluation and consideration. but the actual amount of iranian oil being exported is down. it is probably -- i probably reserve on the exact quantity for close session. >> i suggest that there needs to be much more transparency in order for us to make a judgment

on whether or not doing such sweeping exemptions is wise policy. mr. brennan, i want to quickly touch on cyber security since you and i have worked extremely closely on that issue last year when senator lieberman and i repeatedly tried to get our apprehensive bill through -- comprehensive bill through. i had real reservations about the president issuing an executive order. i think it sends the wrong signal that you can take care of this through an executive order. do you believe the executive order is a substitute for legislation and that only legislation can take further action such as conferring the

branch of immunity >> i am no longer part of the policy community. based on the nature, scope and diversity of the cyber threat out there, we need to do more as a country to address the vulnerabilities that we have and take a step that we need to in order to protect our infrastructure, our networks from these types of attacks. i do believe there are enhancements in legislation that can be made and that need to be made in order to help us, the country, detect our systems, how networks and infrastructure from those kinds of attacks. >> thank you. >> this committee spent an awful lot of time examining the process that resulted in the

unclassified benghazi talking points. you touched on that a little bit this morning. i have one simple question around that. in your professional view of that process, was it in any way unduly politicized? >> absolutely not. >> thank you for a very simple answer. you don't get those very often. i really appreciated. i want to move onto serious for a few minutes. just to set the table, i wanted to ask how you would describe the current state of the opposition in serious -- in ria?ousy rex it is increasingly gaining territory. at the same time, the regime is experiencing shortages in manpower and logistics.

that said, the opposition is still fragmented. there are literally hundreds of these opposition battalions with varying strengths. and there are times he made by the opposition to bring some overarching command and control to that. the bad news in all of this, i believe, with respect to the opposition, is the increasing prevalence of the al qaeda iraq offshoot that has gained strength, both numerically and otherwise. they have been pretty astute about this. they are where they can providing more services in what is a very terrible situation for

many for -- for many from a humanitarian standpoint. there are many human fighters that are attracted to the conflict in syria who have joined the opposition. the opposition, in my view, has been very astute about that. the question comes up -- how long will assad last? our standard answer is that his days are numbered. we don't know that number. he is very committed to hanging in there and sustaining his control of the regime. >> how would you assess there ran -- assess iran and the role they are playing in serious to -- in syria today? >> in terms of providing material aid as well as advice,

to the extent of organizing militias and the sort of thing -- iran, along with their surrogate has below, have a huge stake -- their surrogate hezbo lah, have a huge stake. it would be a street -- a strong strategic loss for the iranians if the regime falls. >> you have mentioned that assad's days are numbered. how do you think iran will react to a post-assad seriousyr. >> that is why they are investing with materials and fighters, to maintain their

interest and their physical presence there. whatever form some successor regime takes, or if there is fragmentation, they would at least have a foothold in syria. we really don't know what their strategy is. >> i will leave you with one last question and then i will give back my time. on egypt, how capable do you think that the current egyptian government is in handling the unrest that we are seeing currently? >> unrest, you say? they were able to suppress the violence in port said ne.

i think they have the capability, once they put their minds to it, to maintain order. >> thank you. >> ok, i yield back. >> senator king. >> i want to call upon your long years of experience. we put a lot of stock in sanctions and have over the years. we are putting a lot of stock in sanctions in iran. as americans, we tend to think that other countries will act and react the way we do when, in reality, their systems are very different than ours. my question on iran is -- is very sufficient political -- they sufficient middle class that has clinical power to influence the regimes decisions aced on the squeeze supplied by the sanctions? does the supreme ayatollah care whether his economy is going down? >> yes, he does.

he does care. it does concern him about the deterioration in the economy because of the prospect for promoting unrest. among the citizenry of iran. we are seeing more signs of that. at the same time, i think the supreme leader's standard for the level of private nation that iran suffered during the iran-iraq war. we don't believe they have reached that point yet. as the supreme leader looks westward or looks at us, he can argue that we are on the decline with our influence declining particularly in that part of the world. his view of the world may not be necessarily fact-based come a

particularly when it comes to internal conditions in his country. >> turning again to another long-standing part of us policy, which is nuclear deterrence, which is a policy since the late 1940s -- does deterrence work with a country like north korea or iran? it is sort of the same question. do they care of a mutually assured destruction? are they've responsive to that kind of thinking that has guided us policy for 50 years? are they countries like the soviet union that we think that they will make a rational decision knowing that, if they do something crazy, they will be wiped out? >> i do think they both understand that. in particular with

north korea if they would expect us to use a nuclear weapon here but they certainly respect the capability of our military. they have gone to school on what we have done, starting with desert storm. i know that for a fact. i think deterrence in this broadest context does work and does have impact on the decision-making calculus of these two countries. >> you had a brief colloquy with last year's cyber bill. that bill did not get through. there were rejections from -- there were objections from the is his point of view. are there things we can do to get that bill through? there is a certain urgency here. i believe it went twice before the senate and it didn't go through either time. what is happening to get that done? i'm sure there are things that

congress can do to push this forward. i would underscore the importance of being able to come up with some legislation that will be addressed -- that will address vulnerabilities that our opponents would be aware of. >> would you characterize the cyber threat as accelerating? >> absolutely. our site is all i have. >> thank you very much. -- that is all i have. >> thank you very much. we will see if we can work together that we can get a bill together that we can move to the committee on the information sharing part of it. that might the of help to you. so we will begin that effort shortly. we will have one other quick round. i have a question on has bola --

on hezbolla. they will continue to conduct terrorist attacks against israelis and americans. as it has recently done in other places. it is a yes or no question, i think. >> yes. they clearly have the intent to do that when they can. >> ok, how does their capacity compared to al qaeda at this time? reached't think they that level of been the core al qaeda at its height. >> i would agree with director clapper. to be specific, it is not at that level. it does have a presence that

extends to many countries around the world. we have seen activity across the globe. but we haven't seen anything like capabilities or duty that can be seen from al qaeda in the last 10 years. >> thank you. >> you are the guy who is responsible for gathering all of the information from the intelligence community, sifting through it and making some critical decisions, not only about who gets what, but where the danger is. this is a public hearing. tell the american public what keeps matt olson awake at night. >> thank you. i would say that this is -- there are a number of things that we are particularly concerned about. from an overseas perspective, it is the decentralized nature of

the threat from al qaeda. as we talked about this morning, the threat from the core al qaeda has been greatly diminished. it is nowhere near where it was 10 years ago. but we have seen that threat become geographically dispersed as affiliated groups and groups sympathetic to al qaeda and its message have grown in areas, for example, in north africa. the significant of those affiliated groups is al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. they seek to carry out attacks against aviation targets three times over the last several years. so i would put that on the top of the list on the overseas perspective you're looking for certain home in the homeland, the number one concern for an attack, albeit a small scale or unsophisticated attack, comes

from homegrown extremists who may be inspired or radicalized the message that al qaeda sends. but it would be a person more likely to act alone or in a small group to carry out a sophisticated attack. it is very difficult for us from an intelligence perspective to see in advance and therefore be able to disrupt. >> is there an aggressive effort on the part of al qaeda as well as other affiliated groups or other terrorist groups for that matter to develop homegrown -- american homegrown terrorists? >> we deftly have seen both from al qaeda court in pakistan as well as a queue, ap in yemen, to reach out beyond those regions into the united states to radicalize individuals who are here who may be susceptible to that kind of a message. they may be simply wayward

knuckleheads. but they may well be inspired by that message and seek to carry out an attack. >> let me address that to you, also, director mueller ver. the fbi has jurisdiction over criminal and domestic activity. i would like your comments on what you see taking place from the pinpoint of homegrown terrorists. >> let me start by saying that the threat from aq ap, the thread is still out there. the individuals responsible for previous events are still there. more directly at home, it is the radicalization of individuals on the internet who have developed the desire or the will to undertake attacks. they are difficult to find. co-conspirators and others can

join in. but then again, the internet can facilitate that kind of meeting or coming together for that kind of attack. it is lone wolves that we are principally concerned about. the other point in terms of keeping me awake is cyber. and the fact that what is happening in the cyber arena cuts across any of our disciplines, whether it's counterintelligence or countered and -- counter terrorists as well as criminal. there are various objectives and goals of discrete individuals utilizing the cyber arena, whether it be for criminal purposes or for terrorist purposes that has grown to be right up there with aqap with homegrown terrorists and cyber attackers. >> thank you. senator rockefeller, are you ok ?

.> i think i'm ok i have a couple of questions i would like to ask, but i would like to get to the closure. >> i know you have a fustian. >> just one, madam chair. on the surveillance front, i hope we can do this with just a yes or no answer and i know senator feinstein wants to move on. last year, the nsa director was at a conference and he was asked about the nsa surveillance of america. he replied, "the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions dossiers on people is completely false." having served on the committee now for a dozen years, i don't really know what a dossier is in this context. so what i wanted to see, if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question, does the nsa collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of americans?

>> no, sir. >> it does not? >> not wittingly. there are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect .ut not willingly goo >> i have additional questions to give you in writing. i thank you for your answer. >> just to answer -- just to follow on his questions, we keep talking about al qaeda. but my impression -- we have to realize that it only takes four or five people these days to mount some kind of a threat. is there a danger that we are so focused on al qaeda that we will miss a second cousin of al qaeda that arises in brazil or someplace that constitutes a

serious threat? >> i don't think so. that is reflected on this panel. we all work area closely together to look forward to determine where that next threat is coming from. we are very focused on the activities of groups in north africa during that may simply be sympathetic to out cato, but have not reached the level of -- to al qaeda, but have not reached the level of pain al qaeda. i speak on behalf of the people working at the national center who are laser focused in trying to identify that next threat good will be -- next threat. will we be perfect every time? no, but we are focused on trying to see that next threat. that is something we are doing as a community. >> if i might add, domestic

threats, we have not forgotten the bombing of oklahoma city in 1995. while, yes, outside threats can be undertaken within the united states. with homegrown terrorists, we try to look aboard -- we try to look across the board. >> are you seeing any increase in those numbers, the number of those groups not related to islamic extremists, but more homegrown? >> to a certain extent, it is cyclical. there are groups who may lose their leaders. either they are incarcerated or have passed. the capabilities of that group,

in order to undertake an attack, would the diminished. we have seen that off and on. we seen that many of the radical groups or extremist groups do not want to be associated with the lone wolves and will push them out. if you have surveillance or understand what is happening, a substantial extremist group having someone around them would present a special challenge. >> we are seeing a proliferation in north africa of sharia chapters. they seem folk used more on local and regional issues -- they seem focused more on local and regional issues in those particular countries and less inclined, at least at this

point, to promote attacks elsewhere. although that is always a possibility. so we will watch these groups as they evolve in their objectives. >> thank you. >> let me thank you, everyone, on behalf of this committee for your service to this country, for your presence here today, for your testimony. and for those of you who did not have a chance to respond, we look forward to seeing you in the committee on some of these issues. we will recess and reconvene directly to our skiff right down the hall at the call of the chair. so thank you and this committee is recessed. >> in a few moments, the senate judiciary committee passes a bill regarding background checks for school safety.

then paul ryan lays out the house geo-feed's 2014 -- the house gop's 2014 budget plan. on the next "washington journal," we will talk with bill cassidy of louisiana, a member of the energy and commerce committee about the effects the hell care law will have on jobs -- the health care law will have on jobs. join us to discuss the but it's been proposed by both parties. as part of our ongoing spotlight on magazine series, senior editor will be here to look at what america's republicans [indiscernible]washington journal is live every day at seven a.m. -- at 7 a.m. eastern.

>> alexandria was founded in 1749. he participated in the political life of the city. he was a trustee of alexandria. he was a justice of the peace of fairfax county. he represented alexandria in the house of the burgesses. even when he was president, he made sure that, when they chose the new side of the nation's capital, but alexandria was included in the original district of columbia. we are in the ballroom are now of gatsby's tavern. all the ladies wanted to dance with him, dancing with the most important than in the united states was a big thrill.

he died in 1799, but they have had balls here every year since then. they did not have them during world war ii. streetalexandria's main is named after washington. alexandra has the largest circus parade in the nation. it likes to say that this is george washington's hometown. >> next week, more from alexandria, virginia as we look behind the scenes at the history and literary life of alexandria, virginia and saturday at noon eastern on c- span two book tv and sunday at five p.m. on american history tv on c-span3. >> chuck schumer says he is optimistic about coming up with a bipartisan bill expanding the background check system for gun purchases. he's the as the senate

judiciary committee passed a different version of a background checks bill. it involves legislation on school safety. this is 40 minutes. we have ad to see number of senators here. we can get started. i appreciate those who come in here because we have -- we can continue the committee meeting we had last week. i look forward to our concluding our committee consideration of these important items. last thursday, we had a bipartisan vote for the soft illegal trafficking firearms act as 54.

some law enforcement strongly favor that bill because of the problems they were facing with the gangs and cartels and others getting weapons. that was the first legislative vote on domestic violence since the newtown tragedy. i thank them for their support. i thank all of you, both sides of the aisle, for the efforts to move forward. the white house call for action last week had an important bipartisan step that takes on the various -- the very serious problems of drug -- of gun trafficking. hand the signing of the violence against women reauthorization act, the president gave the bill a big step, real progress. he knows that bill would crack down on people buying guns and turning around and pawning them

off to dangerous criminals. it is the same position law enforcement has taken. i want to continue to make progress on other bills aimed at reducing violence in the country. we have strong support from several leading law enforcement organizations on the gun trafficking bill, including the fraternal order of cheese, cities chiefs association, federal officers association, various organizations, black law enforcement executives, police executive research, the naacp and so on. so we will continue with the three remaining on gun violence. the proposal to those loopholes in the background check system for firearm purposes.

senator feinstein's bill for the assault weapons ban. i hope we can get them all out of the committee by the end of this week. after remarks by senator grassley, we will turn to senator schumer for committee consideration of his bill to close loopholes in the background check system. we have to suspend -- even though we were on senator feinstein's bill, we have to suspend that as a major meeting of the intelligence committee at the moment. she has to be there. so, senator grassley. >> i will pass the opportunity to make a general statement. i will wait until senator schumer presents his bill. then i will speak about that bill. is that ok?

>> we have before us -- we have before us s374, senator schumer's bill. senator schumer, i will -- i yield to you. >> i want to thank you for the opportunity to consider this piece of legislation and the other important pieces of legislation you brought before this committee. i don't want to say too much about it at this point is the chairman has has asked us to keep their statements short and because i am working on compromise legislation. the fixed gun checks act contains my ideal approach for

extending background checks to all gun sales. the concept is over 90% of americans support. however, it's not the only way to do it. i have in talking and continued to talk with colleagues across the clinical spectrum and across the aisle. about a compromise approach and i remain optimistic that we will be able to roll one out. but we are not a hundred percent there yet. so for the purposes of this committee's market, i have circulated my own bill. that is why we finalize a bipartisan compromise. i have a longer statement about the bill that i will put in the record with the chairman's position along with numerous letters of support. i will highlight two critical things. help states get their record into the database and require a background check for all private gun sales. i would like to offer my amendments as a substitute.

>> the bill would be open and we would accept of the substitute to his bill for normal procedure. then it would be open to amendment fared before i yield to senator grassley, i know we --e senator ron there's senator ramos, some matter blumenthal, senator hatch, and senator blake. that amendment is excepted. senator grassley. >> i want to speak about my objection to senator schumer's bill at the end of my statement. i have two or three questions i would like to ask senator schumer. i oppose the bill. the first point goes to process when this though was first listed on the committee agenda

and it was just a listing of findings. it was not ready for market then. which has now changed as the substitute implies. i don't think the language has changed as the substitute applies. it's still not ready for markup but we're marking it up any way. we were told there was such a widespread support for universal background checks that a bill would be on itself way to passage. instead three of the four senators involved in those discussions do not endorse the bill that is before us. i sense from senator schumer he's hoping that still can happen. the bill is stoim a bill senator schumer introduced in the previous congress. first as a witness stated at

the hearings there is no way to enforce a requirement of universal background checks without implementing gun registration. criminals will continue to buy guns and circumstance strent requirement. when that happens we will be back again debating whether gun relation is needed and then the next move will be gun confiscation. the justice concluded earlier this year with respect to

universal background checks that quote, effectiveness depends on requiring registration. he noted that the largest sources of how criminals obtain guns are through stru purchases and theft. he wrote that straw purchases and theft quote would likely become larger if background checks at shows were addressed this. bill would unnecessarily burden private sales. i think it has unintended consequences. the law already requires background checks for sales by licensed dealers. we're told that criminals don't get guns because of current background checks. we're told when they seek to purchase guns background checks prevent them but that is not the case. obviously criminals still get guns. they obtain them because they do not comply with background checks.

supporters of this bill contend if we only make background checks universal criminals will not get guns. but criminals do not comply with criminal background check laws. why would anybody then think that they would comply the criminal comply with broader background check requirements? they will be driven even more to straw purchases and theft just as the national institute of justice official said. the effectiveness of this sbill therefore highly questionable. my next point and this goes to the details of the bill, the mental health provision frs congress has been eliminated. that is a positive. we had a professor, one of the hearing witnesses pointed out the flaws in that language during the last congress but many other flaws remain.

the bill greatly restrict it is rights of law abiding citizens. the bill exception applies to gifts only. it does not permit lending a gun to a family member. it does not permit a temporary transfer in the home. so a gun owner cannot bring a new gun to a friend's house and let him handle it. if a gun owner and a friend return from a shooting range and stop at a friend's house the friend can't handle the owner's gun to show him how to better clean it. and an owner can transfer his gun at a licensed shooting range or hunting but if they go target shooting, the owner can't let the friend use his gun. now those are some of the problems. on top of that, gun safety instruction will be rendered impossible in many situations by this legislation this.

training could occur at a target range but many of the classes take place at schools, offices, sporting good stores and other locations. then after those classes only at the end does a class go to a shooting range for live fire instruction. so gun safety instructors could not offer the classroom component of the course anywhere except a shooting range or at the instructors home. the most trouble some individuals of the bill is a person's gun that is lost or stolen has to report it within 24 hours to the local police and attorney general. thisth problem is this goes way beyond the short period of time allowed to report. it would be a burden that applies tom lawful gun owners and not the criminal. the law provides quote it

should be unlawful for any person who posseses or owns a firearm to fail to report the theft or lofments it is a felony if a lawful gun owner fails to do so but there is no requirement that a person who unlawfulfully owns a gun report it's theft or loss. a law abiding citizen who commits a felony then. this provision poses a major threat to freedom because in america we prohibit criminal actions although that limits freedom, it does so much less than a law that criminal lieses non-action. in america, it is very rare to criminalize inaction. only a few delass classes have obligation to act. but ordinary citizens do not have that requirement. one very limited exception is

filing a tax return and it took a constitutional amendment to give the government to power to mandate that requiring people to report lost or stolen guns is a good idea. many if not most gun owners do . so but making ate a federal offense not to take affirmative action is a legitimate question. i wonder what constitutional authority the congress has to make people take an action such as this or face a criminal penalty. maybe some of my colleagues would engage senator schumer on that point. finally i note the views of mark once again i quoted last week. he's the father of a young son who was murdered in newtown. he is not willing to entertain this conversation until congress imp ments solutions to improve the nics data base. until you fix the data base and

what feeds it, you will not solve anything, end quote. he says quote these checks are not universal and never will be. that word is to give people the sense they have solved the entire problem end quote. obviously i agree with the letter writer. we heard testimony that hundreds of thousands of mental health records of prohibited persons in a single state have not been provided to the nics. we should make sure existing laws are effective and enforced before we start enacting new ones. for these reasons i oppose this legislation. now aze said to senator schumer i have three or four questions i'd like to ask him. i think they take short answers so i'm not doing this to extend it out but to get some

clarification -- >> just for a moment. >> go ahead. >> i have to step out just for a moment. i'll give the gavel to senator schumer but i know you two go back and forth on the questions. i'll be right back. >> it will just take a minute. >> what if a person thinks they may have displaced their gun, does the 24 hour period apply? >> could you repeat that question? >> if a person thinks they have misplaced their gun, does the 24 hour period apply? >> we don't intend it to cover that. if you know the decpwun lost you are trired report i want. i put in the ideal bill that law enforcement and others want. we're willing to negotiate and compromise on those as i am

doing with my colleagues. and so i am certain that even under this proposal fits 24 hour period and you think it's lost you don't have to report it. if you know it's lost, you would have to report it. >> i bring that up because i said originally i didn't think the bill was ready. how does law enforcement benefit from reporting that a gun is lost or stolen without specific identifying information. >> the more identifying information the better. but as we know 90% of the guns that cause crimes in new york city come from out of state, 90%. so we can have whatever laws we want in new york state, they won't do much gun. the gun runners and straw purchasers go to other states. the best way to figure out how these straw purchasers are working is tracing the guns. if a gun is reported loss or

stolen it helps law enforce nment that process. >> they think so. >> i was worried about the cost for the additional federal and local law enforcement who will take reports of lost or stolen guns, has that been taken into consideration behind your legislation? >> well the whole nick system soveble paid for by the federal government in the provisions of our bill and in the provisions of any compromise and i think they are in the provisions that senator gram has introduced. there are insent tives for the states to complete their records and they get some funding to do that. >> have you taken into consideration in f a person reports to the police that their gun has been stolen but the officer misplace it is form that shows that the sid

complied -- citizen complied? >> i'm sure we can get with that issue. there are all sorts of situations where law enforcement lose it is record and we don't hold the person liable and the same would be here. i want to make a few brief points. look, the bottom line is that the brady law by almost universal agreement has been extremely successful, extremely successful without impinged on the rights of gun owners. i go to rural parts of my state and talk to folks there. they view the second amendment has been treated differently than the first or fourth. the heller decision said that. but i ask them has the brady law interfeared with your right to bear arms in any way and

they all say absolutely not. all of them are for it, almost all of them. all we are doing is extending the success of the brady law to the areas that it doesn't cover. we're using the same exact system of reporting. this idea that this will lead to national registration demeans the arguments here. the bill says there is no registration and no confiscation but already br than that we have a track record of history. we have the system that's been used when you go to fll being implemented for gun shows and other types of tractions. not a wit, not a wick has anyone including the nra or maybe some of the groups further to the right have they said this is a system of

registration. they are not opposing. i don't see them trying to repeal the brady law because it's going to lead to registration. we dodown the same reporting system for guns that are bought at an fll and we do it for gun shows and the sales of guns on internet. now i'm working on compromise with my colleagues as i told you. they have the same concerns you do on family exceptions, on training, on lost and stolen guns and i'm sure we can work those out although law enforcement would prefer we not. it's sad, ripingt after newtown there was a view that maybe the right place that we could all come together on was background checks because background checks unlike some of the other proposals here which i support

do not interfere with the law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. they simply say a felon, someone who is mentally ill or a spousele abuser shouldn't get that gun. and everyone says that is what they we should do. now the argument that my colleagues make that there will still be people who get around the law, that is true. this isn't going to be a perfect bill. but it will sure reduce crimes 1.7 million people went into fll's and were defied a gun. gun crimes have declined since this has been facted. i wish -- i don't wish because i'm a tough on crime guy. you don't use that on any other law, on terrorism, on robbery, on murder, we never see the argument that we shouldn't have laws because the bad people

will get around them any way. only on this issue do you and it makes no sense in my judgment in all due respect. i hope we pass this legislation. i'm optimistic we will find a compromise that will have different views than i do on assault weapon bans and things like that. but i would hope and pray we would debate the rational parts of this bill and not say it's going to lead to confiscation. there is nothing in this bill or nothing in the history since the brady law was passed that indicates a bit of truth to that argument. >> i understand senator grassly has an amendment? >> no amendment. just ten second rebuttal. i thought i was trying to be authoritative and not emotional about registration when i sited

the testimony before this committee. i'll stop there and defer to any other member. i've said all i'm going to say on the subject. >> all statements -- are there any amendments to senator schumer's bill? if not, then the clerk will call the roll on senator schumer's legislation as amended by his amendment. >> y by proxy. >> aye, ay, ay by proxy, ay, ay , ay, a, no by proxy, mr. lee,

no, no, no by proxy, yie. >> ten eyes, eight nays. >> the school of safety enhancement act of 2013 by senator box and collins, i'd call out the bill and offer a substitute that circulated on behalf of senator boxer and senator warner. if there are no objections to substitute the s 146 is amended with the substitute offered. it is open for further amendment. >> i believe that i'm going to offer an amendment but i won't speak about the amendment now. and i think i'll be able to

vote for this bill so i'll say a few words. i work closely with senator boxer and warner on this substitute. i thank them for agreeing to some changes that i requested. i also have this one amendment that i want to bring up. first though, the substitute reduces new authorization from the proposed $100 million a year to a more reasonable $40 million a year. all told this is a $600 million reduction in the cost of the bill over the ten year window. the secure our schools program was authorized in the year 2,000 following the column bine tragedy. it authorizes funds supplemented by fund to make security related improvements to k through 12 schools. the original bill included a

$30 million authorization so this substitute provides a modest increase to $40 million which is essentially adjustment for inflation during that period of time. further the substitute amendment retains the current 50/50 matching requirement to ensure localities have a share in the program's success. it also made a change to the campus safety action portion of the original legislation. it removes the new authorization the previous version of the bill included. instead of new spending, this version merely authorizes use of funds from the program under the burn justice grant program. this change is necessary to give the dire fiscal situation federal government because of what we currently face.

finally, the substitute includes an amendment increasing account ability and anti-fraud measures for the grant program. this is an amendment i've added to a number of tpwhails have received bipartisan support including the trafficking victims protection act. it is in response to the grant flams have little oversight over the years. it is forpt ensure that grantees awarded federal funds are careful with the taxpayer's dollars. i have one amendment i will offer to address duplication and overlap that the government accountability office found in the grant programs. the amendment will ensure these dollars help the most communities possible, the largest number of communities possible. it ensures that the flee grant writing agencies at the justice department coordinate prior to awarding grants.

this was a recommendation of the government accountability office to reduce duplication and overlap. i urge my colleagues to support that amendment when i offer the changes made in the substitute strengthen the bill and my amendment will strengthen it further. provided my amendment is adopted i'm prepared to vote in support of this legislation to help communities strengthen school security. >> the amendment have you is hen 1 3204 is that correct >> no ell 13112. >> i thought it was -- unless there is a lot of opposition, i think i'll just put a statement in the record.

>> hen 13204 which i would accept as accountability and oversight. >> that's in the substitute my staff tells me. >> it's already in the substitute? >> yeah. >> the oll-13112 i understand would mandate the justice department cops grant. it must ensure isth app can't does not receive funding for the same purpose under another grant program. state and local law enforcement rely on public safety policing grants, life saving equipment, provides necessary training. i understand to get the full

money they need to do the kind of training they need, they sometimes have to apply to multiple grant programs. in other words, they are not getting the same money for the same thing over and over again, but one grant might provide for one part of the training, another grant might provide for another part of the training and so on. i'm wondering and i know what the senator does not want to have duplication, i don't either. we only have so much money. >> i wonder would the senator be throg hold this. it's going to be a while before it gets to the floor. i won't try to block it. let's see if we can work on this. i don't want to have a case where you have somebody applying for a grant a cross training between the police and fire departments and others or

the e.m.s. and because they have to apply for two or three different grants to get everything they need in there that they not be blocked. >> what i want to prevent is having an agency apply wherever they can for one purpose but get it from three different sources. that limit it is number of people that can benefit from the total number of dollars coming from washington. and we have some evidence that has happened with a single purpose in mind. >> i'm on the senator's side than but i'm just wondering if we could look at this and craft it in such a way that we do what you want but that we don't block police for example while they respond to something, they probably also have e.m.s.

responding and fire responding, that they not be blocked from doing the training together. >> if i agree with you. and if you understand we don't work something out it's going to slow this thing down on the floor of the senate, i'm willing to do that. we've all been caught up in this procedure you know and then you get to the floor and find out it's not as smooth as you want. >> i do work with him on it. >> i'm trying to understand. what if a school district is looking for some help here and they want to cover ten schools and they get a grant from one of these programs that covers half the schools, are you suggesting they can't go to another program to get the other half covered? >> the answer to that is we see

it as an effort of people taking every opportunity they can to get a guarantee they are going to get some money and also to get more if they possibly can so you don't spread out the dollars and help as many school districts as possible. >> aledesume that the awarding of the second grant would take into consideration whether completing the grant in one school district or giving it to another is an appropriate thing to do. >> we're trying to facilitate communication within the justice department of these various programs. it's simple but why don't you pick up the phone and talk to each other once in a while? >> what kind of sense of tradition do you have? >> i can assure the senator and

he knows i alms keep my word. i will work with him on this and if we're not able to get a conclusion -- >> we'll go ahead as you suggest but i want everybody here to realize this isn't some scheme chuck thought of. this comes from the government accountability office. >> noted. i'm on your side. i just want to make sure that we don't have as we sometimes do the unintended consequence. >> let's go ahead and vote the bill out and i'll still vote for it but i wasn't going to vote for it without this amendment being adopted but based on your good faith i'll go ahead. >> it takes about a half second delay once you hit it. >> i just want to reinforce --

i don't care if it's a grass li scheme i like mst of your skeems. i had an amendment i was going to offer but i'm working with senator boxer to dedicate some of this noun officers of the schools. i'm going to vote for her amendment with the understanding of we're going to try to flow some of this money to resource officers. >> i propose we call the roll. several senators have indicated they would like to speak on some of this. i will stay here as long as anybody wants to speak on any of these matters. but if we could call -- >> ten seconds before you call the roll. >> have all the time you want. >> just ten seconds. this amendment was floated just

a week ago. we didn't hear any objection during the last few days on it. so i thought it was ready to go. let's go vote then. >> clerk call the roll. >> yayay, ay, no by proxy, aye,

aye, mr. chairman, the t votes or 14 ayes, four anyways. >> what we're going to do after we finish today, we will recess subject to the call of the chair. i would assume that with the various schedules and i've been trying to accommodate everybody that we probably will resume thursday on the fine sign the bill and try to complete that. >> i'd like to put a statement in the record on the schumer bill. >> without objection. >> with regard to the thursday schedule, i'll try my best to be here but we also have budget committee and patty murray is going to start that at 10:00 in

the morning and there is no proxies that can be used there so i'm going to have to be there a good part of that day as well. >> nothing today. >> anybody? >> no. >> goodness gracious. i'm not going to object. then we will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair and what you said, let's work together on scheduling because i know there are some amendments that will have to be considered to senator fine sines. i would hope that we can do that and complete it because once we come back from recess, we'll probably be look at immigration. thank you all very much. >> in a few moments budget

committee chairman paul ryan lace out the gop's budget command. harry reid and mitch mcconnell talk about their party's competing budget proposals. then the heads and the cia heads talk about threats tothe global u.s. the house budget committee will markup paul ryan's budget tomorrow morning. you can see that on c-span 3. they are expected to work on the proposal into the evening. >> president obama trourns capitol hill to meet with republicans on thursday. on thursday president barak obama travels to talk about energy and climate change.

the facility is one of the department's largest laboratories for engineering research staffed with more than a thousand scientiststeds and engineers. >> if the public isn't paying as much attention as we are. what i call the political community is about 10 million people. it's the people that watch c-span, they watch meet the press. they watch fox news. they watch msnbc torks a lesser extent, cnn but they care about politics a lot. we had 130 million voters. and most people get a lot of what goes on in politics and washington is background noise. and the background noise comes pretty much from the main stream media and people forming an opinion of romney and obama

and so on,ed the -- fox news doesn't reach most of those people. fox gets great ratings. it has a loyal audience. but look at the shows. bill o'reilly show the most popular. it gets 2 or 3 million people a night. that's not the electorate. we have a big country. >> more with political comment date or the and executive editor fred barns monday at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> the house republican's budget plan would balance the budget in ten years by reforming the tax code and medicare and repealing the president's healthcare law. paul ryan spoke for a half

hour. >> what we have here is the house budget committee republican majority putting out yet again a budget that addresses america's needs, a budget that is balances the budget. it's a path to prosperity, a responsibility balanced budget. we believe that we oh the american people a balanced budget and for the third straight year we've delivered. we balanced the budget in less than ten years. the house budget committee has spent the last several weeks working together just like families and businesses do around the country. we've assembled a budget so our country can live within its means. it's a reasonable goal. we can't keep spending money we don't have. that's the basic acknoment when you are budgeting you cannot

continue to kick the can down the road. you can't spend money you don't have. we cut wasteful spending. we protect and strengthen key priorities like medicare, a program that is going bankrupt. we foster a healthier economy so we can create jobs and grow more wages. you see balancing the budget is not simply an act of arithmetic. not getting expenditures and revenues to add up. it's a mean to a healthier economy, a progrowth society, a progrowth economy that delivers opportunity. that is why we are doing this. let me walk through a few of the charts if this thing works. now here is essentially what we do to begin with. this budget cuts spending by

$4.6 trillion over the next ten years. the government has paid more, spent a lot more. we match revenues with expenditures. so our budget matches spending with income just like every family and business must do within america. we bring our deficits down right away. it goes down to the point where we end up with a surplus in 20 23. in the 1990's democratic president worked with a republican congress to balance the budget. both parties have achieved this in the past. we think it's something we ought to do again. number three, this is the picture that should scare everybody. this is the picture that shows you the path we are on today which we know without a sled of doubt we are consigning the next generation to an sbror standard of living.

we are facing a debt crisis in this country and that hurts everybody. but the people who it hurts the most are the poor, the elderly. they get hurt the worst in the debt crisis. so we are addressing the most predictable debt crisis in this nation's history. the red line shows you the path this country is on right now. the green line shows what we achieve by putting this budget into law. we will give our children a debt free nation and that helps grow our economy as well. please know by balancing the budget we grow the economy. by including progrowth reforms like tax reform we make it easier for businesses to be competitive.

we want families getting out of poverty into the middle class and that is one of the corner stone policies we have in here is tax reform. >> thank you mr. chairman. our budget is an opportunity change the course of our nation. we have a responsibility to avoid the debt crisis as the chairman has already said and to move forward with a prosperous future. now common sense and math tell us that balancing a budget requires two things, cutting spending and economic growth. a huge obstacle right now to this is our complicated tax code. today the tax code is nearly 4 million words long and about 60% of our taxpayers need to hire a professional to help them prepare their returns. every year americans spend $6 billion hours and $160 billion filling out their returns.

clearly something is wrong. now our budget pave it is way for tax reform and it reafirms that the means and weighs committee will pass tax reform legislation this year. now this budget builds on bipartisan con sense san to lower the rates and ensure fairness and simplicity for our families. the purpose of tax reform is not to take more money from our families to spend more money here in washington. it's to create jobs and increase the wages for our working families. i look forward to working with my budget members to advance comprehensive tax reform this year to help us strengthen our economy, reduce our deficit and get americans back to work. thank you.

>> at this time i'd like to turn the podeyume over to dr. tom price from georgia. >> budgets are about priorities and priorities that the american people overwhelmingly support, including getting federal spending under control, getting folks back to work and getting our debt crisis under control so we can preserve the american dream for future generations. this path to prosperity is the way to a responsible balanced budget. american families all across this great land know that the federal government shouldn't spend more than it takes in and we agree. sadly the budgets proposed by president obama have never ever got on the balance. the legal deadline for the president to present his budget to congress this year was february 4.

it's now march 12. past experience tells us when he does bring that budget, that one likely won't budget either. american families can't live this way and negotiate should the federal government. people work too hard to have the federal government take more of their money to spend more in washington. we want the american people to keep more of their money to save and spend and invest as they see fit. senate democrats haven't adopted a budget in nearly four years. they will do one this year because of the no budget no pay act that was passed earlier this year. will they say we need more taxes to chase more spending. the truth is they can't ever tax the american people enough to pay for the spending they want. we look forward to seeing their budget. the next test will be whether they can pass the budget they introduce.

will enough senate democrats be willing to tax more so washington can spend more. that washington way simply isn't working. the american people are sick and tired of political games being played with our economy. our plan, the house republican budget finally puts a stop to that. so washington uses hard earned tax dollars in an accountable and effective way. had will the white house and senate democrats be able to say the same thing about their budgets? >> this path to prosperity, this budget here will create a healthier economy where job creators are hiring, job seekers are finally finding more jobs, more work and more american families and entrepreneurs are realizing their dreams. this path ensures our commitment to americans.

it protects our national security, cares for the sick and poor and expand economic opportunity for every single american. republicans will protect these vital programs while we will control spending and solve our nation's debt crisis. our hope is democrats see these vital programs as something they want to save and strenthen. we believe in the american dreams of the american people. it's time that the government starts acting worthy of the people that we represent. thank you. >> thank you, dr. price. >> this is not only a responsible reasonable balanced plan, it's also an invitation. this is an invitation to the president of the united states, to the senate democrats to come together to fix these problems. we don't think it's fair to let critical programs like medicare go bankrupt. we don't think it's fair to

take more from hardworking families to spend in washington. the most important question isn't how we balance the budget but why. a budget is a means to an end. an end is the well being of the american people. an send the growing economy that produces opportunity. it will provide security we need for families. it will help secure requirement for our seniors and expand opportunity for young people who are having a hard time finding careers and jobs in this stagnant economy. i mentioned to the president is other day. we want the process so we have regular order. what does that mean? that means let's do our jobs. that means we want to pass a budget here in the house. we are pleased the senate is going to pass a budget or at least attempt to pass a budget. what that means is we're reviving a process that's not in the back room but that shows how we're going to accomplish

these goals. we want to revive this process so at the end of the day we have a vehicle to get something done. i don't think the president disaagrees with that. this is an invitation show us how do you propose to balance the budget. are we going to be come police is it with never balancing our budget? we know that this debt and deficit is hurting our economy today and destroying the future of tomorrow. this say specific plan to show it how to get it under control. it's a progrowth upward moible society. the final point i would make is this, far too long in washington we measure our success of inputs, how much money are we spending on the programs rather than by outputs, are they working. we have put so much money in welfare yet we have 46 million

people living in poverty. it's one of the highest rates of poverty we've had in a generation. rather than measure how much money we are spending in the programs, let's measure are we helping? are we getting people out of poverty and on their feet again? these are the kind of questions we are tackling in this budget and as we do this we are showing the country a plan to balance the budget, grow the economy, get people out of poverty, get the american dream reunited especially for those people who have seen it slip away from them. let's take your questions. >> you spent months on the campaign trail arguing against raising taxes. in this budget, you say that you balance in ten years in part by using $600 billion in new taxes you oppose? >> we are not going to refight the past because we know that's

behind us. we are showing with the fiscal cliff and all the other things that have occurred in the past which spending is going down as well, that clearly makes it easier to balance the budget. let's replace this anti-tax code, this loophole tax code with a progrowth tax system that helps families and businesses. replace it with a better progrowth s. lower tax rates, fewer loopholes and we can still balance the budget in doing. so we are not going to refight the past which law is law. that's not going to change. that's why we are saying not only can we do it faster. we want to do it with a better progrowth tax code. >> you have said we're not going to fight past yet a key tent of your budget is the affordable care act. we hear generals sometimes

fight the last war. why go through that again? did you feel you had to include repeal of the affordable care act or it wouldn't pass the house of representatives? >> it was never a doubt in our mind. the fiscal cliff occurred but we don't like the tax code it produced. so we're proposing a new tax code that is a progrowth tax code. we don't like the affordable act. we believe this law is going to collapse under its own weight. please know that when americans see what this law entails which they have not seen all of the details. those of us who know what is going to happen to the prider networks and what is going to happen to people when they lose their health insurance and jobs, they are not going to like this law. we don't think we can afford to

borrow $1.8 trillion this law entails. we say here is how you save medicare, but here say better patient centered system to replace obama care. we believe in getting rid of obama care because it destroys the healthcare system. we think there say better way to go. this to us is something we're not going to give up. we're not going to destroy the healthcare system for the american people. we believe this law will do a great deal of damage to american families in the healthcare system. >> the president is going to balance something to gpt ratio. why is it so important to you to reach balance or near balance in a year certain versus simply getting the debt

to stabilize? >> getting the debt to stabilize does not fix our problems because the debt is too large. i would question the integrity of some of the statistics on what primary balance means. we should balance the budget because families and businesses do that. we have to get this debt down. you can't pay down this debt unless you balance the budget. we run surprusses in 2023 and get this debt under control. the problem is the current high levels of debt today are a threat to our economy and they guarantee we will destroy the future of the next generation. simply by making a stath look a little less bad is not and the democrats are going tchune path. >> if you can't repeal obama

care how long lit take you to balance the budget? >> we believe that obama care is going to be so unpopular in this country because of all the promises. america's will find out it's not the case. if we passed obama care it would lower cost? it's fwn going up. remember when he said he would do it in the open? it was a back room deal. you're going to see substandard healthcare. you're going to see young people not wanting to go into the field of healthcare because of obama care. we believe in the interest of healthcare and making medicaid work better for low income people we need to replace it with a better system, with aer patient sentered system. we will never balance the budget if you keep obama care going because it's a fiscal train wreck.

>> one thing you campaigned on a lot was the $616 -- >> $716 billion that were part of the cuts of the medicare law. $716 billion funneled out of medicare by president obama all to pay for an entitlement we didn't ask for. did you count the $716 in your budget as well as you dount savings from the fiscal cliff deal as deficit reduction. so the $716 reduction so is the deficit reduction and it brings you closer to a balanced budget, isn't that go against everything you stand for two of your primary areas are birthed out of the white house? >> we believe a on the revenue side that we can still have a progrowth tax code that lowers rates and broad tns base at the

current revenue line we have. this is why to those who want to raise taxes and spend more money. we can still have a very good internationally competitive family supporting progrowth tax reform. to your medicare point, we stop the rate of medicare. president obama took money from medicare to spend money on creating obama care. we theand raid and we make sure all the dollars go back to medicare. we are concerned about some of the prider networks. we are concerned about some issue that is might arise like with the doctor fix. we have a special fund, a special procedure to address any inadd sis if those situations arise. we want to make sure every penny goes to medicare. and if we find like we have found with doctors if there is

a problem that needs addressing, we have a special procedure to do just that. >> people out of this process might look at this press conference which is similar to the one last year where you stood there and we all sat here. people outside this process might be watching today and saying well ryan did this last year. >> and the year before and the year before that. >> and he was on the ticket. ran on this not exactly the ryan budget but pretty darn close. president obama ran tron balanced approach raising the taxes on thesenate republicans s and people outside this priceless -- this process might wonder if they have consequences on the process. >> the election did not go our way. i know what that feels like.

that means we surrender our principles. we stopped believing in what we believed in. whether the country intended it or not, we have a divided government. we have the second-largest house majority we have had since world war ii. " we believe in this divided government era, we need to put out our vision. we owe the country a balanced budget, siliceous the big problems plaguing our nation. a debt crisis on the horizon, a slow grind -- a slow-growing economy. we are sharing our answers. elections to have consequences. we are in the majority. this is our offer, our vision. what you do is you show the country what you believe in. the senate has not passed a budget in four years despite the fact the law requires them to do so each and every year. because of the no budget, no pay

act, the senate is finally doing a budget. i am very pleased patty murray as attentive to pass a budget. we have not seen that attempt in a long time. if she can pass the budget, then that gets usocee iss going down the path of solving problems. let's revive the budget process so we can get it down payment on the problem. will the president take every one of these solutions? probably not. did we win ? these arguments in the win some of us think so. -- did we win some of these arguments in the campaign? some of us think so. we hope the senate follows suit andshows their vision. if they put their plan on the table, the macon are looking for common ground. as a constructive way forward --

look for common ground. that is a constructive way forward. >> what about going after middle-class tax breaks like charitable donations of health care exclusions? >> this is what the ways and means committee will do which is based set up working groups. they are doing here and after hearing going to the tax code and try to figure out a better tax system. our goal is to have a two bracket system that is pro- growth. closing the loopholes, maintaining a 41 week will have hearings on to find out which of the most important for middle income taxpayers. i would also argue with those who think we to keep raising taxes on higher income people, corridorlug loopholes

tax rate. we think that it's smarter. 8 out of 10 businesses are. not are they file thir taxes as individuals. those tax rates are as high as 45% today. i represent wisconsin. among our greatest competitors are canadians. lester canada lower their tax rate on all their businesses to 15% -- last year, canada lowered their tax rate on all their businesses to 15%. how can you compete when your competitors are taxing and a much lower tax rate than we hours? the current tax code is destroying crops -- destroying jobs. the ways and means committee is proposing this remarkable event legislation to plug these loopholes and lower tax rates so we can get more people working again.

[inaudible] >> our defense spending level reflects exactly what the president's joint chiefs and cemeteries said are the minimum necessary. we think this is our first party, national defense. we are formed -- funding at levels said necessary to maintain national security for the country. >> were talking about the fiscal cliff deal and how it made your job easier but you still have to take steps to get balance. what are those steps? >> the contract, the discretionary capps and within the budget window. we extended the cap out. we also wanted to extend our reforms on the public work force of federal employees to include all federal employees at the end of the budget window so their present -- their pension can

match. we don't think federal employee should have pension systems and the excess of what their private counterparts get. it makes it easier to balance the budget. we have always produced the budget in the past. it is just taking a longer time very with some of these reforms, gets to balance the budget by the end of the decade. now that we know it is easier to balance the budget, we should not drop the ball. the president and democrats should join us to balance the budget. balancing the budget helps our economy, and gives it pro-growth economy. it makes sure our kids inherited debt free nation. this is sickle all of us should have. thanks everybody -- this is a goal all of us should have.

thanks everybody is a frequent president obama -- thanks everybody . >> >> mr. president, on what you hope to accomplish -- what do you hope to accomplish in these meetings? >> we are revealing contrasts. the president is reaching out to republicans in the senate and in the senate, we are working out a bill in a bipartisan fashion to invest a compromise that will protect middle-class families. tomorrow senator marie will

introduce her bill, her resolution. it will be brought to the floor next week, we hope. house republicans are moving further away from a compromise. the are investing the ryan republican budget that is more extreme than a propaganda we have seen in the past. the ryan republican budget cuts problems -- cuts programs to the middle class instead of asking the wealthiest to pay a little more. he is going after education, health care research, preventive health, kansas screenings and much more. -- cancer screenings and much more. their budget ends medicare as we know it. our economy is a place to grow.

the republican rand a harsh austerity could reverse the progress we're making. the american people do not want to see as retreating into our respective corners. they wanted to find common ground, to work together to find solutions. it is too bad republicans are moving further to the right to them we thought they could. [inaudible] budget make aan harder for you to move anywhere near their direction? >> i am so sorry, did not follow your question. >> when the paul ryan comes out

as a budget he described as more extreme, does america harder to negotiate? >> i do not think there is any way to negotiate if it is a one- sided negotiation. less a problem we have had now for years with republicans. -- that is the problem we have had now for years with republicans. >> are you open to changes to social security? >> here is the issue -- the president in the past and present -- and present negotiations with boehner as indicated he would be willing to do certain things. the republicans never get further than that. >> will the money under the

murray plan wbe recognized in [inaudible] >> i do know hers is a balance plan -- a bala nced plan, 50/50. [inaudible] >> we are confident dodd frank will be implemented more quickly. it is already going forward. there is no question that on obamacare, the party is being held, exchanges are being created and next we will have the invitations to join the party we are holding. [inaudible] >> i do not know all the details

but this is in this new era of let's get along. all this yelling about this bipartisan bill. i just learned when i was here with the president that coburn bnow -- now won't let us move the bill. we will have to use the new r ules we have where mcconnell and i can move forward ourselves. the first heard about was a few minutes ago. [inaudible] >> no, the one that put up

millions of dollars to put this forward, responded to them. as he said in his letter response, it's more of this tea party driven nonsense. can you imagine anyone opposing high-speed rail? we have such a difficult time getting people back and forth from southern california, southern nevada. and it is not just to watch shows in las vegas. it is commerce, trucks carrying products that need to be carried across the country. the president likes it. it is something we should do. that is nonsense to hear from the budgeteers who want to go back to the dark ages in most everything. thank you, everybody.

>> good afternoon. i know the president is up here talking to our democratic colleagues and look forward to having him up on thursday to meet with our group/ . given the fact we're going into the budget week with both democrats and republicans laying out their budgets that will be on the floor of the house and senate next week, it is noteworthy for the point out this is the first time in 90 years that the president's budget will action, after both the house and senate have voted. i hope that is not a reflection of a lack of seriousness and is beyond the party. with regard to what we're doing this week, the first amendment on the republican side will be by center cruise related to delaying the implementation of

obamacare until the economy gets back on track. with regard to what you have described as a president's charm offensive, we welcome it. the reports like octomom of los reports i got were god. -e od. it is a good opportunity to have a candid up -- to have a candid conversation. we will be discussed again the possibility of finally solving our huge deficit and debt problem by making changes to the entitlement side that we all know we have to make if we are going to save these programs and our country. [inaudible]

not since 1921 has the president fail to meet the timetable to submit his proposed budget to the united states congress. except with the current occupant in the white house who was missed that deadline for times out of five. if there is a better way to render yourself are relevant to the most -- to the debate on the most important issue facing our country today, that we will take the cake. the president's budget will mike get here until after the house and senate have passed their own budget -- will not get here unti the house and senate have passed their own budget. he would send his budget here before the house of senate passed on their own budget. that might be the reason why we find ourselves $16 trillion in debt. because the president had shown

no leadership on this and seems insistent on leading from behind. >> this is budget week in the senate. i think that what do we should ask is what is this budget going to do to result in economic growth? that is the question that should be asked of every budget proposal out there. the house is in the process of doing their budget. if you look the last four years and a policy the obama administration has put in place, it is higher taxes, and burdensome regulations, have made it more expensive for job creators to create jobs and have resulted in sluggish economic growth. we have had .8% growth for the

past four years. you would hope the democrats will be looking at policies that will grow the economy. what you're hearing is it will be more of the same. we are talking about a $1 trillion tax increase, more expensive -- more spending and nothing to save social security and medicare reform and those programs in a way that will align them with the feature demographics of this country. it is more the same policies with regard to their budget. we think there is a better way and will look for opportunities to offer amendments that will put that out -- that will point that out. the democrat budget will make it more difficult for stock traders to get back to work. -- for job creators to creat e jobs to get people back to

work. >> there was a story today that talked-about the number of democrats griping about the president's health care law. at this washington democrats go to their homes and talk to folks, they are realizing the law is better for patients, bad for the nurses and doctors to take care of those patients and terrible for tax payers. there are now a new $1 jillion worth of taxes on americans. this is hurting our country and the economy -- there are now a $1 trillion worth of taxes on americans. this is hurting our country and the economy. the one part that says if a business grossed over 50 employees, than they have to start providing care or pay

large fines. and they decide on a full-time employees based on 30 hours a week for that employee. more and more businesses are hiring people with only 29 hours or fewer said they are not considered full-time. even the federal reserve says the president's health care law is hurting the economy. there is no better time to repeal and de-fund the president's health care loss of people can finally get the care they need from a doctor they choose the lower-cost -- at lower cost. >> on the budget, four years as a long time not to do your job. this must be a budgetary masterpiece it has taken four years to put a budget on paper. we look forward to seeing that budget, here in the debate on that in finding out how much of

it is fact and fiction. there is a big economy gap to fill between the last time senate democrats said what they were for and what they say they are for right now. >> 1413 and all they can come up $1 trillion is worth of increased taxes. we will find out which senators want to reign in government spending and which wants to increase the deficit. it will make clear this debate which members of the united states senate want to create jobs and which want to continue to rely upon government handouts. democrats will have the opportunity to explain to their voters why did the four years,

the only solution they have had to our country's fiscal colom are to raise taxes, to increase spending. what's on a positive note, we are going to do a budget -- >> on a positive note, we are going to do a budget. when i go home to new hampshire, it is shocking and people here it is an almost four years since the end of the budget for the country. on the negative note from what has been released about them but so far, they have indicated they will increase taxes to $1 trillion. essentially it would be $1 trillion tax increase without balancing the budget, in the tenure window, without saving

the time of programs. but those seniors out there -- for those seniors out there, have increased taxes and not to those programs seems unconscionable. i can tell you what i'm hearing out there on the street from small businesses. they cannot afford the health care costs that are going up because of obamacare. the what to grow their businesses but do not increase taxes on us again. they want to grow their businesses but did not increase taxes on us again. if there is a $1 a share in tax increase, what will that do for

our businesses -- if that is a $1 jillion tax increase, what will that do for our businesses? i was disturbed by the president and attended general caboclos in guantanamo bay -- about closing guantanamo bay. i will write the attorney general, asking how long we interrogated osama bin laden's son in law. how long did we try to spend finding out about what he knows about al qaeda. this is a very important issue the american people need to do

with -- to be aware of. was he doing in iran? we would like to get answers to that as well. >> are there any questions? [inaudible] >> until we make our entitlement programs fit the demographics of our country, you cannot save america. you cannot save the health care system and you cannot save america. the revenue side is completely irrelevant to solving this problem. we gave the president $650 billion in taxes at the end of the year and now we have to do with the spending problem. we are dealing with part of it

on the discretionary time with the implementation of the sequester. the second part of the equation is to do with where the huge expenses are and as on the entitlement side. where is no revenue solution to that. and have to be done by making the eligibility for entitlements for the demographics of the day and tomorrow -- it has to be done by making the eligibility for entitlements for the democrats -- for the demographics of today and tomorrow. kabul on a cr and the budget -- both on the cr and the budget, there will be many cedrics presented. we expect it will generate another discussion.

the only way to street america out is to fix the entitlement issue -- the only way to straighten america out is to fix the atomic issue. we hope he will step up with dozens of the problem. the out regius been having is a good thing. -- the outreach he has been having is a good thing. the reports were it was a candid and fruitful discussion. having more of that as a good idea. thanks a lot. >> the house budget committee but mark up paul ryan's

tomorrow at 10:30 eastern. you can see it on c-span3. president obama returned to capitol hill to meet with house republicans tomorrow and with senate republicans on thursday. friday, mrs. obama travels to tralk about energy and comic change -- travels to talk about energy and climate change. staffed by more than 1,000 scientists and engineers. the senate intelligence committee hears from the national intelligence director and the heads of the cia and fbi about global threats to the u.s. in 2 hours, the senate judiciary committee passed a bill regarding background checks for gun purchases as well as legislation on school safety. >> when it comes to the

secretary of state of people around her, what i found is her ability to stay focused at all times as much as possible on what is happening. she does not get distracted by the details, if they're not important. she has an ability to stay focused on the big picture. how is what is happening in the afghanistan impacting what they might be doing it until the middle east? she had the good sense of what is the big picture, what is the strategy? she is surrounded by people hurt -- by people helping her. that allows her to stay focused on what really matters. she does not worry about whether a lunch will be served not. it would just arrived when she

is thinking about the big picture. >> and look a hillary clinton's tenure as secretary of state on "after words." >> according to national intelligence director james clapper, automatic spending cuts jeopardize the nation's safety and security. testifying before the senate intelligence committee, he says cyber threats are a top concern. he was joined by john brennan and fbi director robert mahler. this is a little less than two hours -- fbi director robert muller. this is a little less than two hours. >> the committee will come to order. we meet today in an open session, as we have done since 1994. to hear an hon classified briefing from our intelligence leaders on the threats that face our nation, hence the title. as members know, we will

immediately follow this session with a close one. i will ask that members refrain from asking questions here that have classified answers. this hearing is really a unique opportunity to inform the american public about the threats we face as a nation and world wide. let me begin by welcoming our witnesses and thanking them for being here. they are the director of national intelligence, who will provide the opening statement on behalf of the intelligence community, the director of the cia, new to the job, john brennan, the director of the fbi, bob mueller, who is appearing in his last world wide hearing before this committee. you never know. the director of the defense intelligence agency, michael flynn.

the director of the national counter-terrorism center, matt olsen. and ambassador phil goldberg. thank you for your statement, which i have read. it has been submitted and we very much appreciated. it is clear of the threats to the united states are many. they are diffused and complex. we face a continuing threat at home from terrorist attacks. most notably from al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, but also from homegrown extremists, including the attempted times square bomber.

it is notable that the statement for the record includes assessment that, due to recent losses, the core of al qaeda and pakistan is probably on able to carry out large, complex attacks in the west, although its desire to do so has not changed. this appears to be a stronger statement than in the past about the effect of counter-terrorism operations against al qaeda. since last year, our staff has been keeping a tally of terrorism-related arrests in the united states. with the arrests, on march 5, for conspiring to provide support for terrorists, there have now been 105 terrorism- related arrests in the united states in the past four years.

we have listed these. that is the number appeared 105 arrests in the last four years. in our federal criminal court system, the arrests would most likely lead to a conviction or a guilty plea. if those arrests have not resulted in conviction or guilty plea, it is only because the case is still ongoing. another indicator of the success of our criminal justice system, in prosecuting terrorists, is that in 2011, the department of justice released a list of terrorism trials conducted since 2001. and reported a total of 438 convictions from september 11, 2001, to december 31, 2010. in those nine years, 438

convictions in federal courts. we have also been briefed recently on the detention and arrest of osama bin laden's son- in-law and al qaeda spokesman. i like to commend the agency's work to bring him into the united states and prosecute him in a federal criminal court, where he faces a life sentence. as a terrorist threat has succeeded, a threat of espionage has grown. we have seen a large scale denial of service attacks against united states banks and recent public reports, including by the computer security, about massive cyber penetrations and a loss of property from united states businesses. i am very concerned also about the instability that seems to be festering across northern

africa, from mali to egypt and beyond. breeding and hiring a new generation of extremists. some are on an able and unwilling to take action against these terrorist groups. the rest of the world would need to focus energy and attention to preventing a safe haven and launching pad for future attacks. in syria, there is a massive and still growing humanitarian disaster under way, with no end in sight, as the regime and the opposition appeared nearly at a stalemate. there is a possibility the president would become sufficiently desperate to use its chemical weapons stockpile. i note the statement includes exactly that warning. i know the president has expressed the use of chemical weapons would be a deadline for

the united states. i would predict the united states senate would demand a strong and swift response should the use of such weapons occurred. syria is not the only state to be making headlines. north korea has claimed a third nuclear weapons test, displayed a mobile ballistic missile, and demonstrated the capability of the missile. the regime is now disavowing the 1953 armistice with the south. there is perhaps nowhere else on earth where the capacity to wreak enormous damage is matched by the possibility of north korea using their nuclear weapons. both the syrians and the north korean example demonstrate the need to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. revolutionary guards are growing older and more capable.

these and many other threats and challenges faced the intelligence community and play a very critical role in providing warning to the united states policymakers and to providing insight to shape their policy decisions. unfortunately topic they are being asked to do this work under the self-inflicted damage of sequestration. i know you have been planning for sequestration and would like to speak to its effect. i have an amendment currently on the senate floor which would provide a community with as much flexibility as possible to limit the cuts made by sequestration. in the same way as the rest of the department of defense, to make sure intelligence efforts can proceed as much as possible.

we may now turn to the chairman for his opening remarks. >> thank you. i join in welcoming all of our witnesses today. particularly john brennan, as his first testimony as director of the cia. congratulations. to bob, i had a conversation with him when his last term was ending, and implored him to think about staying. i will expect to have that conversation again with you. i may not be successful this time, but you have provided great leadership at a great agency and all of america is safer because of the kind of leadership you have provided. we do not want to miss any

opportunity to say thanks. i particularly appreciate all of you being here today to talk about the threats that face our nation. they come in all forms. terrorism, espionage, cyber, and counterintelligence. from all forms of the globe. today, the american people have a chance to hear firsthand from those on the front lines what these threats mean to the security of our nation. let me start out by noting that today's hearing follows a lively discussion over the past month about the potential for the domestic use of drones. this debate brought new attention to the difficulty congress faces in getting information from the executive branch. the intelligence community is obligated under the national security act to keep the congressional intelligence committees fully informed of its intelligence activities, including covert action.

we cannot do the oversight american people expect from us if every branch of information becomes a protected bible. as a group, our witnesses represent the entire intelligence community. each of you has made a commitment to this committee to provide information when it is requested. we understand there may be exceptions to this rule. we are now operating in an environment with the exception has become the rule. we have heard it said over the past year that core al qaeda has been decimated and is on the run. it's pakistan-based leadership is crumbling under the pressure of u.s. and allied counter- terrorism efforts. new threats posed by al qaeda affiliates and similar organizations are emerging and possibly expanding in places like yemen, north africa, and mali. in the past six months, terrorist attacks have claimed

innocent american lives. these attacks show radical and extreme ideologies are not going away anytime soon. instead, these terrorist organizations are regrouping and gathering strength. when we entered afghanistan in october, 2001, our goal was to put the al qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the taliban regime out of business. now, as we prepare to leave afghanistan 12 years later, the taliban and similar groups in afghanistan and pakistan seem to have mostly survived years of counter insurgency and counter- terrorism. this raises the question of whether these groups will be able to create a sanctuary like we saw before 9/11. as we face new threats, we are badly overdue for a long-term policy that allows us to fully and effectively interrogate

terrorist detainees. last week, osama bin laden's son-in-law faced justice. i firmly believe this administration's refusal to place new detainees at guantanamo bay is hurting our ability to collect intelligence. it seems as though we now either just killed terrorists or give them a round of warnings. dead terrorists do not talk. and the ones we do capture, after 50 minutes or 90 minutes, we are not likely to get the intelligence we need. three years ago, we had the same conversation following the failed christmas day bombing. i am disappointed this scenario seems to be repeating itself. whether he is ultimately tried

in federal court is not the primary question. it is whether we maximize our opportunity to gathered good intelligence up front. waiting for a potential plea deal before getting access again, as we saw with the christmas day bomber, is, i believe, simply the wrong approach. the concern we have returned to the dangerous pre-9/11 mind-set where international terrorists are treated as ordinary criminals, this is a mistake we should not repeat. the administration paz's handling also seems to directly contradict the national defense authorization act, which specifically called for individuals like him to be held in military custody. i understand this undermined the spirit of the military custody requirement. what i believe is an abuse of the waiver provision, the military created broad accepted

categories under which they could continue to avoid placing terrorists in military custody. i would ask if someone like abu ghaith is not held, who will be? it merits our close attention. as does the conflict in syria. it is important to ensure the intelligence community can give us a clear reading into these hot spots and what may arrive over the horizon. cyber espionage and intrusions are growing every day. if we are going to prevent the syphoning off of hackers and nation states alike, congress must work with the private sector in a cooperative way. we must pass voluntary

information sharing legislation that completely protect companies from the threat of lawsuits. the government must put its own cyber house in water and we must make sure our criminal penalties are sufficient to punish and deter a cyber intruders. today is your opportunity to give the country a real glimpse of what it means to be on the front lines of the intelligence community. spending cuts combined with the verse threats is a threat. i am confident the men and women of the intelligence community who worked so hard every day in defense of the nation will rise to this challenge and not only get the job done, but, under your leadership, they will do it well. i thank you and i look forward to a discussion with our

witnesses. >> thank you for those comments. we will now proceed. director, you have the floor. you will make the comments on behalf of everyone. then we will be able to answer questions. the round will be five minutes because we have a classified hearing. we will go according to seniority, alternating sites. please proceed. >> distinguished members of the committee, we are here to present the 2013 world wide assessment. i want to speak very briefly about the alpha and omega of tenure in the intelligence committee. bob mueller is a very

distinguished director of the fbi and a tremendous colleague for me in this job and the previous ones i have held. i could not be more delighted and more proud to have john brennan confirmed and installed as the director of central intelligence agency. it is my view john will go down as one of the distinguished directors of the cia. these remarks and our two statements for the record, one unclassified and a much more detailed classified one reflect the collective judgment of the men and women in the intelligence community. it is our privilege, those of us here and those of us who are not, to serve in these positions. i will discuss our solemn duty to try to protect them. i have serious reservations about conducting open hearings on a worldwide threat, especially on the question and answer session. it is important to keep the american public informed about the threats our nation faces.

as you know, we are ready to answer any and all of your questions. an open hearing on intelligence matters is something of a contradiction in terms. our statements for the record and your opening statements can be viewed in advance, but our answers to your questions cannot carry out their attempts to avoid revealing classified information sometimes leads to misinterpretation or accusations we are being circumspect for improper reasons. when we asked to discuss certain matters in closed sessions, it is not to evade, but rather to protect our intelligence sources and methods, and, to be sensitive to the often delicate relations we have to our allies and partners. they listen to and watch these hearings carefully, as i have learned the hard way. the topic for most on our minds this year is sequestration.

you have not seen much public discourse on the impact of these indiscriminate cuts on intelligence. we have not been on the talk shows and you do not read much about it on the printed media. let me now be blunt. for you and for the american people sequestration forces the intelligence community to reduce all intelligence activities and functions without regard to impact on our missions. in my judgment, sequestration jeopardize our nation's safety and security and this jeopardy will increase over time. the national intelligence program, which i manage, is spread across six departments and two independent agencies. much is included in the budget. for that portion, the congress directed that the national intelligence program use an even more onerous set of rules to carry out these cuts proposed on the defense department.

this restrictive program project in activity compounds the damage because it restricts our ability to manage where to take reductions in a balanced and rational way. accordingly, the size of the budget cuts, over $4 billion, about 7%, will directly compel us to do less with less. some examples, and i will have to be circumspect here in an open session. we are prepared to speak more specifically in a classified section. we will increase the risk of strategic surprise. this includes possibly furloughing thousands of fbi employees funded in the national intelligence program. our cyber efforts will be impacted. this is an area where we need

to keep ahead of rapid technology advances to maintain and increase access to adversaries, as well as provide warning of a cyber attack against the u.s. dairy critical analysis and tools will be cut back. we will reduce global coverage and may risk missing the early signs of a threat. our response to customers will suffer, as well we will let go over 5000 contractors and the number may grow, and they are an integral part of the intelligence committee. this is on top of the thousands we have let go in the previously years. we will reduce coverage. virtually all of the 39 major systems acquisition across the intelligence committee will be wounded. we will be forced to take them in seven months. these condensed time lines magnify the impact these cuts will have.

in response, our approach starts with the premise that the mission comes first. our two highest priorities are to protect our most valuable resource so we can focus on the threats we face, and support overseas operations. a civilian work force works 24/7 around the world and is crucial to performing the mission. it is our professionals who will provide the resilience and ingenuity to help compensate for the other cuts. i am resolutely committed to minimizing the number and length of furloughs required because of the severe impact of morale. i plan to follow the secretary of defense's sterling example.

let me emphasize here that we are not arguing against taking our share of the budget reductions. what i am saying is that we must manage this budget crisis and continue our missions. i plan to submit a reprogramming act to help us cut more rationally. i am asking for your support and the other intelligence oversight committees were expedited. i want to thank you for your leadership and your care for the mission of the intelligence community and introducing a bill that would give us that flexibility. i have seen this movie before. 20 years ago, i served as the director of the defense intelligence agency.

we were enjoying to reap the peace dividend. we reduced the intelligence committee by 23% during the late 1990's, we close cia agencies, caught analysts, and neglected basic infrastructure needs, such as power, space, and cooling, and we let our facilities decay. most devastatingly, we distorted the workforce badly. all of that was reversed in the wake of 9/11. thanks to the support of congress over the last decade, we read the rich to rebuild the intelligence committee. now, if we are not careful, we risk another damaging, downward spiral. i will do all i can to prevent history from repeating the cycle. to be clear, the scope and magnitude of the cuts underway will be long-lasting.

on like more directly observable sequestration in tax, like shorter hours at public parks and along the security lines at airports, the degradation to intelligence will be insidious. it will be gradual and almost invisible, until we have an intelligence failure. let me turn now to a briefly laid review of global threats and challenges, although madam chairman, you and the vice chair have done a good job of that already. my almost 50 years in intelligence, i have not confronted a more diverse array of threats and challenges of run the world, which you both described. to me, this makes sequestration even more incongruous. threats are growing more interconnected and viral.

they could quickly set off disruptions that affect national interests. our definition of war now includes a softer version. we can add a cyber and financial to the list of weapons being used against us. such attacks can be deniable. our statement this year leads to cyber. it is hard to overemphasize its significance. increasingly, state actors are gaining and using cyber expertise. they apply cyber techniques and capabilities to achieve strategic objectives by gathering sensitive information from public and private sector entities controlling the content and flow of information.

these capabilities put all sections of our country at risk from government and private networks to critical infrastructures. some terrorist organizations are interested in developing offensive cyber capabilities. cyber criminals are using a growing black market. this year, we include national resources affecting national resources because shifts have national security implications. many countries that are extremely important to u.s. interests are living with extreme water and food stress that could destabilize governments. this includes afghanistan, pakistan, south asia, egypt, yemen, and many other states across africa and in our own hemisphere.

many countries that are extremely important to u.s. interests that sit in while top areas are living with extreme water and food stressed that can destabilize governments. this includes afghanistan and pakistan, south asia, yemen, the arab world in many other nations states. water challenges include problems with quality and quantity and flooding. they are certain to use declining local food security to gain legitimacy and undermine government authority. introduction of a livestock are plant disease could be a greater threat to the united states and the global food system than a direct attack on food supplies. there will certainly be security stearns -- concerns. environmental stresses are not just humanitarian issues